Election 2008
It's become fashionable to look ahead towards 2008 and handicap the presidential election. Several people have already asked who I think will run, get the nomination, and win. I'll start here with a list of possible Republican contenders, offering some thoughts on each (or maybe just most). I'll address the other side of the aisle in a future post. Given my political leanings, I'm more interested in one side than the other.
First, a rundown of some names that have been thrown around:
Senators:
George Allen, Virginia (former governor)
Sam Brownback, Kansas
Norm Coleman, Minnesota
Bill Frist, Tennessee, Majority Leader
Judd Gregg, New Hampshire (former governor)
Chuck Hagel, Nebraska
Jon Kyl, Arizona
John McCain, Arizona
Rick Santorum, Pennsylvania
Governors:
Jeb Bush, Florida
Bob Ehrlich, Maryland
Ernie Fletcher, Tennessee
Bill Owens, Colorado
George Pataki, New York
Tim Pawlenty, Minnesota
Mitt Romney, Massachusetts
Mark Sanford, South Carolina
Others:
Dick Cheney
Rudy Giuliani
Condoleeza Rice
Tom Ridge
Blackjack. Er, I mean, that's enough for the names. This is not a completely exhaustive list, but, odds are, the nominee will be one of these 21. I can think of a few off the top of my head who might run that I've left out, but I'm not going to add them back in, at least not right now.
Before I begin the blurbs on each, or most, of them, I'd like to point out a couple of things. First, it is extremely difficult to pick a nominee this far out. Without an incumbent president, and presumably without an incumbent vice president, the field is wide open. Not many were jumping on the George W Bush bandwagon right after 1996, and likewise for John Kerry in 2000. Bob Dole would have been on the short list in 1992, but I don't think it was all that clear that he'd be the nominee (I'm old enough to remember the '92 election, but deeper political stuff from then is a bit beyond me, unless I've read about it more recently). Bill Clinton was not an obvious choice in 1988, nor Carter in 1972. Okay, perhaps Reagan in 1976 and Mondale in 1980. At any rate, it's not easy. Secondly, going along with the first point, the 2006 elections are immensely important. As you'll read, many of these guys are up for re-election then; a failed attempt at reelection, or a messy win can hurt a presidential hopeful, while a more impressive victory than expected can propel one. Immediately following the 1998 election, George W Bush looked like the nominee for 2000; Kerry was the frontrunner immediately following the 2002 midterms, but it was much murkier.
political positions held are very important. Elected positions beat out unelected ones. There is a hierarchy which descends president, vice-president, governor, senator, other. Discounting presidents and vice presidents, governors are far more successful running than other positions, both in the general election, and in the primaries. Starting with 1944 (because I'm too lazy to search back further), the Republicans nominated the following, according to highest position attained: 6 sitting presidents (56, 72, 76, 84, 92, 04), 3 vice presidents (60, 68, 88), 4 governors (44, 48, 80, 00), 2 senators (Goldwater in 64 and Dole in 96), and 1 Supreme Allied Commander (Eisenhower in 52, a position I'd rate higher, though it was unelected, but I listed last because it was only due to special circumstances (his role in WWII) that he was able to get the nomination; on a side note, isn't "Supreme Allied Commander" a way better job title than president, or almost anything else?). Sitting senators have only been elected president twice, Kennedy in 1960 and Harding in 1920 -- no other Senator has been elected president since at least Benjamin Harrison (elected 1888) without having also served as vice president or president first. So, it doesn't look good for senators (unless they're angling to become the vice presidential nominee).
Now, on to the nominees, addressed in whatever order I feel like.
Vice President Dick Cheney -- has said he won't run, and I see no reason not to believe him. There is a "draft Cheney" movement, but I don't see it going anywhere. One special note here, though: if Cheney has to leave the vice presidency early for health reasons or some such, assuming he does so by early 2007 at the latest, his replacement becomes a potential frontrunner (though it's possible Bush would go for another VP with no further political ambition).
Governor Jeb Bush -- also has said he won't run, and I again see no reason to doubt. There's a similar draft movement, and he's wildly popular among conservatives (and Floridians), but there's that pesky business of his last name.
Secretary Condoleeza Rice -- unlikely to run. She has never sought elected office before, a major handicap in running for president. She's not as socially conservative as the base would like (though her social views are unknown to most people). She is wildly popular among Republicans, though. Possible 2010 candidate for governor or senator of/from California.
Rudy Giuliani -- finally someone I think will run. He's quite popular with the public at large, and is often listed as the frontrunner for the nomination. However, his social views are not widely known, and, once they are found out, would be very damaging to his candidacy, at least in a Republican presidential primary. He supports abortion (he's not even against partial-birth abortion), he favors gay marriage, and he favors gun control. Not the kind of stuff to endear him to the base. You can bet his primary opponents will bring this up early and often should he decide to run. Moreover, the "America's Mayor" stuff won't be as strong 6.5 years after 9/11 (6.5 years being the time to the primaries; 7 years to the general election). Plus, his last election will have been in 1997; that's a long time in politics (he was running for senate in 2000, but withdrew do to cancer and other issues). He's also twice-divorced, and had a messy, and very public, affair prior to his last one. I think he'd need an election win in 2006 to become a real contender -- either New York governor, or senator, which would be a race against Hillary Clinton (a win there would make many Republicans forgive his many shortcomings); while he's too liberal for the national Republicans, he's viewed more along the lines of the best they can hope for as far as New York goes. However, that creates a problem in that it would be better for him to serve at least one full term as either before running for president. In short, he looks formidable now, but it looks like he'll lose some luster in the next few years.
Tom Ridge -- former Pennsylvania governor, and former head of the Department of Homeland Security. Mentioned mostly as a potential VP in 2000, he looks unlikely to run in 2008. His geography is good (i.e., he could probably deliver Pennsylvania for the Republicans), but he has not built much of a following, and is not pro-life, which hurts any efforts to build a sudden, surging campaign.
George Pataki -- the New York governor is the longest-serving Republican governor today, having been first elected in 1994 (I forget if any democrats have served for longer). However, he's a definite northeast Republican and shaky on social issues (as well as other issues). He's up for reelection in 2006 and might not run. I've heard it summed up best as "the only person who believes George Pataki can win the nomination is George Pataki." He might run, but I don't expect him to break 5% in any primary/caucus/whatever.
Mitt Romney -- current governor of Massachusetts and formerly led the Olympic Committee for the Salt Lake City Winter Olympic Games. He faces an uphill battle for reelection in 2006, and pretty much needs to win to have any shot at 2008. That said, his stock has fallen among many Republicans. While he was being touted as possible 2008 material before the 2004 election, almost all of that has tailed off. He's still listed among the contenders, but isn't getting the support.
Ernie Fletcher -- haven't read as much about this guy, but the things I've heard are great. He runs into two problems: 1) he's not well known, and 2) he faces re-election in 2007 (Kentucky is one of the few states to hold an odd year election). Reelection in November and then Iowa and New Hampshire in January? Not likely. If the Republicans lose in 2008, though, he'd be in good position for a run in 2012 (retire after two terms; he'd have to campaign in 2011 while still in office, but he'd be out of office when things really swung into gear for the primary (and general) election schedule).
Tim Pawlenty -- another governor up for re-election in 2006. He has to win that first, of course. Minnesota is slowly drifting in a Republican direction, but isn't quite there yet; he could push it into the Republican column in 2008. Seems to have good social creds and doing a good job in Minnesota. His approval rating dropped from 60% in March to 50% in early May, though, according to the Star Tribune, due to contentious budget cutting and other issues. I think he's likely to win reelection, but it's a definite wait and see.
Bob Ehrlich -- won in definite democrat territory in Maryland, and up for a tough reelection bid in 2006. Can't say much about him, except that he needs to win reelection to have a shot.
Mark Sanford -- despite the South's (and perhaps especially South Carolina's) new reputation as solid Republican territory, Sanford had to defeat an incumbent Democrat to win the governorship. Beating incumbents always looks good. He has a very good reputation among the party's base -- or at least those who have heard of him (name recognition his one major shortcoming). Again, up for reelection in 2006.
Bill Owens -- quite possible had been the frontrunner. National Review had run a cover story calling him the nation's number one governor. Things kinda went downhill from there. Due to budget constraints partially caused by a peculiarity in Colorado law, he enacted some (small) tax increases that were not popular. He's had a messy separation from his wife (apparently, she kicked him out of the house). I hear that they're back together, trying to patch things up, but, well, we'll see. His seat is up for election in 2006, but he's term-limited (served two terms). If he can comeback from his problems, he could be a leading contender, but that's "if".
John McCain -- has a large following, especially in the media. Is more conservative than he is often portrayed, but his "maverick" status irks many among the Republican base. That, and he's a prima dona. He'll automatically get some following, probably even into the double digits, but won't win the nomination.
Chuck Hagel -- a friend of McCain, probably won't run if he does, probably will if he doesn't. Seems too easily influenced my the national media, not a real friend of the Republican base. No chance of winning the nomination.
Sam Brownback -- a popular conservative, at least among those who know his name. The fact that the Republicans gave another senator from Kansas the nomination in 1996 might hurt him. Still, a popular conservative.
Rick Santorum -- another popular conservative. Good geography, being from Pennsylvania. Won election twice, but looks to be in a tough reelection campaign for 2006. As usual, a win is a must. Has made some moves in the last year or so that have alienated him somewhat from the base, with his active support of (unpopular with the base) Sen. Arlen Specter, and a couple of his recent policy moves.
Jon Kyl -- not very likely to run, especially if McCain does. He is popular with the base. He's up for reelection in 2006, and being targeted, but the Democrats had made him their early number one target in 2000 and couldn't even find a candidate. Reelection should be fairly easy. Kyl has been mentioned as a possible Supreme Court nominee by Bush, but that would be unlikely until after 2006, because Arizona's governor, Janet Napolitano, a Democrat, would appoint his replacement until the 2006 election (of course, he remains an unlikely nominee after that if the Republicans fail to unseat her in 2006).
Judd Gregg -- being a former governor is a plus, and he has a pretty good reputation with the base. That name recognition thing rears its head again, though (I haven't mentioned that for all the candidates that it's an issue for, btw, so don't feel lost if you didn't recognize all of their names). He comes from a battleground state (a plus), but only a small one. New Hampshire, by the way, is not a typical northeastern state and is, by far, the most favorable to Republicans.
Norm Coleman -- won in the Democrat (actually Democrat Farm Labor, in that state) dominated Minnesota, which is a plus (though, as I mentioned, Republicans are making gains there, especially in 2002). He faces reelection in 2008, which is a minus, as only serving a single term is bad, and having to choose between offices to run for is bad (John Edwards faced the same problem in 2004, for what it's worth). Former mayor of St. Paul, so there is some executive experience there, though mayor isn't close to governor. Popular with the base, but not a likely candidate.
Bill Frist -- the current Senate Majority Leader has decided not to seek reelection in 2006. It is widely believed that he will run in 2008. He had managed to become decently popular with the base, and was looking good for a shot at the nomination. He even has a gimmick, being a heart surgeon. However, the way he's handled some issues in the Senate has irritated the base, chief among these is not ending the Democrats' filibusters of judicial nominees. However, if he ends the filibusters (and a showdown on that is expected soon), his stock would shoot back up as all (well, maybe most) would be forgiven. He would also have the luxury of a year out of office to campaign before Iowa and New Hampshire. The next couple of weeks will be very important in determining his chances.
George Allen -- a former executive, which is a big plus. He faces a potentially tough reelection campaign against current Democrat governor Mark Warner (whose name resembles that of popular former (Republican) governor and current senator John Warner, which makes things harder for Allen). He was the head of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, which is in charge of electing and reelecting Republicans to the Senate, for the 2004 election cycle. As the Republicans did rather well in those races (maybe not as well as the very best that could have been reasonably hoped for, but close to it), he gets some of the credit. It may not sound like a lot to you, but to the party activists who disproportionately participate in the primaries, it means a lot. Even before that, he was fairly popular with the base. Assuming he wins reelection, I see him as a very strong darkhorse candidate (darkhorse to non-political junkies, at least). I think his term as governor (in Virginia, governors are limited to a single term, which is part of the reason that three are mentioned here) counts for enough to cancel out the negative of being a senator.
Update: I somehow forgot Mike Huckabee, governor of Arkansas, who I've written more about here and here.
First, a rundown of some names that have been thrown around:
Senators:
George Allen, Virginia (former governor)
Sam Brownback, Kansas
Norm Coleman, Minnesota
Bill Frist, Tennessee, Majority Leader
Judd Gregg, New Hampshire (former governor)
Chuck Hagel, Nebraska
Jon Kyl, Arizona
John McCain, Arizona
Rick Santorum, Pennsylvania
Governors:
Jeb Bush, Florida
Bob Ehrlich, Maryland
Ernie Fletcher, Tennessee
Bill Owens, Colorado
George Pataki, New York
Tim Pawlenty, Minnesota
Mitt Romney, Massachusetts
Mark Sanford, South Carolina
Others:
Dick Cheney
Rudy Giuliani
Condoleeza Rice
Tom Ridge
Blackjack. Er, I mean, that's enough for the names. This is not a completely exhaustive list, but, odds are, the nominee will be one of these 21. I can think of a few off the top of my head who might run that I've left out, but I'm not going to add them back in, at least not right now.
Before I begin the blurbs on each, or most, of them, I'd like to point out a couple of things. First, it is extremely difficult to pick a nominee this far out. Without an incumbent president, and presumably without an incumbent vice president, the field is wide open. Not many were jumping on the George W Bush bandwagon right after 1996, and likewise for John Kerry in 2000. Bob Dole would have been on the short list in 1992, but I don't think it was all that clear that he'd be the nominee (I'm old enough to remember the '92 election, but deeper political stuff from then is a bit beyond me, unless I've read about it more recently). Bill Clinton was not an obvious choice in 1988, nor Carter in 1972. Okay, perhaps Reagan in 1976 and Mondale in 1980. At any rate, it's not easy. Secondly, going along with the first point, the 2006 elections are immensely important. As you'll read, many of these guys are up for re-election then; a failed attempt at reelection, or a messy win can hurt a presidential hopeful, while a more impressive victory than expected can propel one. Immediately following the 1998 election, George W Bush looked like the nominee for 2000; Kerry was the frontrunner immediately following the 2002 midterms, but it was much murkier.
political positions held are very important. Elected positions beat out unelected ones. There is a hierarchy which descends president, vice-president, governor, senator, other. Discounting presidents and vice presidents, governors are far more successful running than other positions, both in the general election, and in the primaries. Starting with 1944 (because I'm too lazy to search back further), the Republicans nominated the following, according to highest position attained: 6 sitting presidents (56, 72, 76, 84, 92, 04), 3 vice presidents (60, 68, 88), 4 governors (44, 48, 80, 00), 2 senators (Goldwater in 64 and Dole in 96), and 1 Supreme Allied Commander (Eisenhower in 52, a position I'd rate higher, though it was unelected, but I listed last because it was only due to special circumstances (his role in WWII) that he was able to get the nomination; on a side note, isn't "Supreme Allied Commander" a way better job title than president, or almost anything else?). Sitting senators have only been elected president twice, Kennedy in 1960 and Harding in 1920 -- no other Senator has been elected president since at least Benjamin Harrison (elected 1888) without having also served as vice president or president first. So, it doesn't look good for senators (unless they're angling to become the vice presidential nominee).
Now, on to the nominees, addressed in whatever order I feel like.
Vice President Dick Cheney -- has said he won't run, and I see no reason not to believe him. There is a "draft Cheney" movement, but I don't see it going anywhere. One special note here, though: if Cheney has to leave the vice presidency early for health reasons or some such, assuming he does so by early 2007 at the latest, his replacement becomes a potential frontrunner (though it's possible Bush would go for another VP with no further political ambition).
Governor Jeb Bush -- also has said he won't run, and I again see no reason to doubt. There's a similar draft movement, and he's wildly popular among conservatives (and Floridians), but there's that pesky business of his last name.
Secretary Condoleeza Rice -- unlikely to run. She has never sought elected office before, a major handicap in running for president. She's not as socially conservative as the base would like (though her social views are unknown to most people). She is wildly popular among Republicans, though. Possible 2010 candidate for governor or senator of/from California.
Rudy Giuliani -- finally someone I think will run. He's quite popular with the public at large, and is often listed as the frontrunner for the nomination. However, his social views are not widely known, and, once they are found out, would be very damaging to his candidacy, at least in a Republican presidential primary. He supports abortion (he's not even against partial-birth abortion), he favors gay marriage, and he favors gun control. Not the kind of stuff to endear him to the base. You can bet his primary opponents will bring this up early and often should he decide to run. Moreover, the "America's Mayor" stuff won't be as strong 6.5 years after 9/11 (6.5 years being the time to the primaries; 7 years to the general election). Plus, his last election will have been in 1997; that's a long time in politics (he was running for senate in 2000, but withdrew do to cancer and other issues). He's also twice-divorced, and had a messy, and very public, affair prior to his last one. I think he'd need an election win in 2006 to become a real contender -- either New York governor, or senator, which would be a race against Hillary Clinton (a win there would make many Republicans forgive his many shortcomings); while he's too liberal for the national Republicans, he's viewed more along the lines of the best they can hope for as far as New York goes. However, that creates a problem in that it would be better for him to serve at least one full term as either before running for president. In short, he looks formidable now, but it looks like he'll lose some luster in the next few years.
Tom Ridge -- former Pennsylvania governor, and former head of the Department of Homeland Security. Mentioned mostly as a potential VP in 2000, he looks unlikely to run in 2008. His geography is good (i.e., he could probably deliver Pennsylvania for the Republicans), but he has not built much of a following, and is not pro-life, which hurts any efforts to build a sudden, surging campaign.
George Pataki -- the New York governor is the longest-serving Republican governor today, having been first elected in 1994 (I forget if any democrats have served for longer). However, he's a definite northeast Republican and shaky on social issues (as well as other issues). He's up for reelection in 2006 and might not run. I've heard it summed up best as "the only person who believes George Pataki can win the nomination is George Pataki." He might run, but I don't expect him to break 5% in any primary/caucus/whatever.
Mitt Romney -- current governor of Massachusetts and formerly led the Olympic Committee for the Salt Lake City Winter Olympic Games. He faces an uphill battle for reelection in 2006, and pretty much needs to win to have any shot at 2008. That said, his stock has fallen among many Republicans. While he was being touted as possible 2008 material before the 2004 election, almost all of that has tailed off. He's still listed among the contenders, but isn't getting the support.
Ernie Fletcher -- haven't read as much about this guy, but the things I've heard are great. He runs into two problems: 1) he's not well known, and 2) he faces re-election in 2007 (Kentucky is one of the few states to hold an odd year election). Reelection in November and then Iowa and New Hampshire in January? Not likely. If the Republicans lose in 2008, though, he'd be in good position for a run in 2012 (retire after two terms; he'd have to campaign in 2011 while still in office, but he'd be out of office when things really swung into gear for the primary (and general) election schedule).
Tim Pawlenty -- another governor up for re-election in 2006. He has to win that first, of course. Minnesota is slowly drifting in a Republican direction, but isn't quite there yet; he could push it into the Republican column in 2008. Seems to have good social creds and doing a good job in Minnesota. His approval rating dropped from 60% in March to 50% in early May, though, according to the Star Tribune, due to contentious budget cutting and other issues. I think he's likely to win reelection, but it's a definite wait and see.
Bob Ehrlich -- won in definite democrat territory in Maryland, and up for a tough reelection bid in 2006. Can't say much about him, except that he needs to win reelection to have a shot.
Mark Sanford -- despite the South's (and perhaps especially South Carolina's) new reputation as solid Republican territory, Sanford had to defeat an incumbent Democrat to win the governorship. Beating incumbents always looks good. He has a very good reputation among the party's base -- or at least those who have heard of him (name recognition his one major shortcoming). Again, up for reelection in 2006.
Bill Owens -- quite possible had been the frontrunner. National Review had run a cover story calling him the nation's number one governor. Things kinda went downhill from there. Due to budget constraints partially caused by a peculiarity in Colorado law, he enacted some (small) tax increases that were not popular. He's had a messy separation from his wife (apparently, she kicked him out of the house). I hear that they're back together, trying to patch things up, but, well, we'll see. His seat is up for election in 2006, but he's term-limited (served two terms). If he can comeback from his problems, he could be a leading contender, but that's "if".
John McCain -- has a large following, especially in the media. Is more conservative than he is often portrayed, but his "maverick" status irks many among the Republican base. That, and he's a prima dona. He'll automatically get some following, probably even into the double digits, but won't win the nomination.
Chuck Hagel -- a friend of McCain, probably won't run if he does, probably will if he doesn't. Seems too easily influenced my the national media, not a real friend of the Republican base. No chance of winning the nomination.
Sam Brownback -- a popular conservative, at least among those who know his name. The fact that the Republicans gave another senator from Kansas the nomination in 1996 might hurt him. Still, a popular conservative.
Rick Santorum -- another popular conservative. Good geography, being from Pennsylvania. Won election twice, but looks to be in a tough reelection campaign for 2006. As usual, a win is a must. Has made some moves in the last year or so that have alienated him somewhat from the base, with his active support of (unpopular with the base) Sen. Arlen Specter, and a couple of his recent policy moves.
Jon Kyl -- not very likely to run, especially if McCain does. He is popular with the base. He's up for reelection in 2006, and being targeted, but the Democrats had made him their early number one target in 2000 and couldn't even find a candidate. Reelection should be fairly easy. Kyl has been mentioned as a possible Supreme Court nominee by Bush, but that would be unlikely until after 2006, because Arizona's governor, Janet Napolitano, a Democrat, would appoint his replacement until the 2006 election (of course, he remains an unlikely nominee after that if the Republicans fail to unseat her in 2006).
Judd Gregg -- being a former governor is a plus, and he has a pretty good reputation with the base. That name recognition thing rears its head again, though (I haven't mentioned that for all the candidates that it's an issue for, btw, so don't feel lost if you didn't recognize all of their names). He comes from a battleground state (a plus), but only a small one. New Hampshire, by the way, is not a typical northeastern state and is, by far, the most favorable to Republicans.
Norm Coleman -- won in the Democrat (actually Democrat Farm Labor, in that state) dominated Minnesota, which is a plus (though, as I mentioned, Republicans are making gains there, especially in 2002). He faces reelection in 2008, which is a minus, as only serving a single term is bad, and having to choose between offices to run for is bad (John Edwards faced the same problem in 2004, for what it's worth). Former mayor of St. Paul, so there is some executive experience there, though mayor isn't close to governor. Popular with the base, but not a likely candidate.
Bill Frist -- the current Senate Majority Leader has decided not to seek reelection in 2006. It is widely believed that he will run in 2008. He had managed to become decently popular with the base, and was looking good for a shot at the nomination. He even has a gimmick, being a heart surgeon. However, the way he's handled some issues in the Senate has irritated the base, chief among these is not ending the Democrats' filibusters of judicial nominees. However, if he ends the filibusters (and a showdown on that is expected soon), his stock would shoot back up as all (well, maybe most) would be forgiven. He would also have the luxury of a year out of office to campaign before Iowa and New Hampshire. The next couple of weeks will be very important in determining his chances.
George Allen -- a former executive, which is a big plus. He faces a potentially tough reelection campaign against current Democrat governor Mark Warner (whose name resembles that of popular former (Republican) governor and current senator John Warner, which makes things harder for Allen). He was the head of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, which is in charge of electing and reelecting Republicans to the Senate, for the 2004 election cycle. As the Republicans did rather well in those races (maybe not as well as the very best that could have been reasonably hoped for, but close to it), he gets some of the credit. It may not sound like a lot to you, but to the party activists who disproportionately participate in the primaries, it means a lot. Even before that, he was fairly popular with the base. Assuming he wins reelection, I see him as a very strong darkhorse candidate (darkhorse to non-political junkies, at least). I think his term as governor (in Virginia, governors are limited to a single term, which is part of the reason that three are mentioned here) counts for enough to cancel out the negative of being a senator.
Update: I somehow forgot Mike Huckabee, governor of Arkansas, who I've written more about here and here.
Labels: Election 2008
posted by DC | 4:21 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home