Election 2008, again
Well, I already reviewed the Republicans, so now it's time to do the democrats.
Once again, a quick list of them, sorted by current position, or recently held position, or something, then a list with more details on each.
Senators:
Evan Bayh, Indiana
Joe Biden, Delaware
Hillary Clinton, New York
Chris Dodd, Connecticut
Russ Feingold, Wisconsin
John Kerry, Massachusetts
Joe Lieberman, Connecticut
Blanche Lincoln, Arkansas
Barack Obama, Illinois
Governors:
Rod Blagojevich, Illinois
Mike Easley, North Carolina
Janet Napolitano, Arizona
Bill Richardson, New Mexico
Brian Schweitzer, Montana
Tom Vilsack, Iowa
Mark Warner, Virginia
Others:
Wesley Clark, retired Army general
Howard Dean, Democratic National Committee Chairman
John Edwards, former senator and vice presidential nominee
Al Gore, former Vice President
Nancy Pelosi, House Minority Leader, California
.
I had to work at it a bit, but I managed to come up with another blackjack, which is what I had for the Republicans (though I busted by adding another one here). As I did with the Republicans, I included some that I very much doubt will run.
Evan Bayh -- Indiana senator and former governor. His father had also been a popular politician in the state. He's been viewed as a moderate but lately has been drifting left, presumably to build up his liberal bonafides for a primary run. He's viewed positively by Democrats because it's believed that he could put Indiana, normally a sure thing for Republicans, into their column, along with tilting some other midwest states in their direction (Ohio, most importantly). That said, people do look at presidential voting and gubernatorial/senatorial voting differently -- he wouldn't be a sure thing to deliver his home state (though I wouldn't count him out). More importantly, how well would a "moderate" fare in the primaries, especially in these days of the angry democrats? The 2004 nominees, John Kerry and John Edwards, had the first and fourth most liberal voting records in 2003, respectively. Would dem primary voters support the fourth-least liberal voting record among democrats? Unlikely. However, he could be VP material.
Joe Biden -- has spent over half his life in the Senate after first being elected prior to his thirtieth birthday. He made a run at the nomination in 1988, but withdrew after evidence surfaced that he had plagirized some material. He also considered a run in 2004, finally deciding against it when it was pretty much too late to join the race anyways. He's been around for quite awhile and his time has pretty much come and gone. I read an interesting article in National Journal before saying that presidential wannabes need to make their run within x years (12? 15? I don't quite recall) of first winning office, and he's well beyond that. He will have served 35 years in the Senate by the time of the first primary, and you don't serve that long only to suddenly gain a large following.
Rod Blagojevich -- He won the Illinois governorship in 2002 and is up for re-election in 2006. His name has been tossed around as a rising star of his party. I've heard it said that he'll be in for a tough campaign in 2006, but with the state the Illinois Republican party has been in the last few years, I'll believe it when I see something more concrete, especially thinking of their embarassing showing in the 2004 U.S. Senate contest there (where Alan Keyes made a pitiful showing after their original nominee withdrew following revelations involving Seven of Nine and sex clubs). A drawback could be his name -- people like names they know how to pronounce and/or spell. It's not a disqualifier or anything, but it's harder to gain traction when you're known as "that one guy".
Wesley Clark -- retired general, led the NATO campaign in Kosovo. As a former general, he's viewed as giving the Democrats crediblity on national security. However, during Kosovo, the Russians came in and occuppied an airport there, and he ordered the nearby British general to attack them (the general replied "I'm not going to start World War III for you" or words to that effect), which makes you question Clark's judgement (and/or sanity). He was also rather disliked by his fellow officers. During his fairly brief run at the 2004 nomination, he proved himself at least as gaffe-prone as Dean, he just managed to do it more under the radar. Some claim that it was only because it was his first time running for office, but it strikes me more as a character problem. At any rate, it's uncommon for someone to make president their first elected job, and this guy isn't exactly Eisenhower-class.
Hillary Clinton -- wow, where to start with her. As we all know, she's married to that one guy. She brings a ton of baggage with her (and I don't just mean that she'd return the White House furniture). While her positives (that is, the people with a positive view of her) are high, her negatives are quite high, too. Some people have pointed to her Senate win in the 2000 election as proving her electablity, but a) that was due mostly to New Yorkers' fondness for her husband, and b) she won New York 55-44 in the same election that Al Gore beat George W Bush there 60-35 (results don't total 100 in either case due to rounding and third parties). She won by 11 when Gore won by 25 -- makes her victory a tad less impressive, doesn't it? Now, you can come up with all sorts of excuses for why that is, but the fact remains that a dem winning in New York with a margin of 55-44 is not impressive. Likewise, some people have touted a recent poll on how likely people would be to vote for her in 2008 if she ran; the results were something like this: 18% very likely, 38% somewhat likely, 20% not likely, and 24% a snowball's chance in hell. Now, I made up the numbers based on what I remembered from reading a few weeks ago, but they're pretty close. Lots of headlines pointed to the majority being very or somewhat likely to support her. However, there are two problems with this. First, that the poll was of adults rather than registered or likely voters. Second, "somewhat likely" is much more ambivalent than "not likely" -- if something has a forty percent chance of happening, do you say that it's somewhat likely or not likely? More people would go with somewhat likely. I know that's not the way a voter approaches the issue exactly, but "not likely" is a much firmer negative than "somewhat likely" is a positive. While Hillary does well in all the polls, elected Democrats seem to be uninterested in a second Clinton trying for the White House. Of course, none of them want to say such on the record, so what I've heard is anecdotal, but still. As long as I'm on anecdotal evidence, I recall a girl I knew (who was a definite democrat) saying that she wouldn't vote for Hillary for president, because she's too controversial (scandal plagued, et cetera) and could doom the prospect of a second female president for years to follow (the same girl would vote for Elizabeth Dole, for what it's worth). The Right worries about Hillary, and she seems to have a commanding lead, but the nomination is far from being handed to her. She's also up for re-election in 2006, so we'll see how that goes. Oh, quick note on that -- she's been doing gobs of fundraising and it doesn't look like she'll have a major opponent, meaning she can transfer her extra money (some project $40 million) to a presidential campaign, which would give her an enormous advantage (both in having the money and because having money tends to draw more money).
Howard Dean -- former Vermont governor and current DNC chairman, Dean spectacularly fizzled out in the 2004 primaries. He has a horrible case of foot-in-mouth disease. However, to keep this short, he agreed not to seek the nomination in 2008 when he was seeking the party chair. Some have looked into what it would take to remove him from that position, but unless and until that happens, I won't bother any more with rumors about him running (unless he flat-out says he's running).
Chris Dodd -- the other senator from Connecticut. Much less known than Lieberman, it's believed that the reason he sat out in 2004 was because Joe was running. If Lieberman doesn't run in 2008, then Dodd can make his move. He still suffers from low name recognition, being a senator, and all that stuff. Popular enough that you don't have to search too much to see his name tossed around as a potential candidate, not popular enough to be considered a tier-1 candidate.
Mike Easley -- the North Carolina governor won re-election rather easily in 2004. Winning election twice in a southern state is viewed positively by those who look ahead to general election matchups. However, he's still not well known and not a first tier candidate.
John Edwards -- the 2004 vice presidential nominee for the democrats, he's made no secret about wanting to run again. He was viewed as a moderate, but his voting record -- and his rhetoric -- would indicate otherwise. His charisma also doesn't seem to be as good as it was hyped to be. On the stump, sounded more like a lawyer commercial than a political candidate. He was elected to the Senate in 1998 from North Carolina, and decided not to seek re-election in 2004, when it was quite possible he would have lost. He's made no secret about wanting to run for the nomination again, and he looks certain to attract a certain following, but I doubt he'll win the nomination.
Russ Feingold -- senator from Wisconsin, first elected in 1992, won a third term in 2004 with about 55% of the vote. He's the less-famous half of McCain-Feingold (the campaign finance reform bill, now law). He's popular for the campaign finance reform, but imposes stricter campaign finance rules on himself, which would make it difficult for him to raise enough money for an effective run.
Albert Gore, Jr. -- former senator from Tennessee, failed candidate for the nomination in 1988, twice elected as Bill Clinton's sidekick, and came up just short against George W Bush in 2000. He explored a 2004 run, but didn't have the needed support. He seems to have grown a bit crazed since his close electoral defeat, it seems to have done him psychological harm. Nixon came back eight years after losing to Kennedy to win the presidency, but I don't see Gore doing anything of the sort.
John Kerry -- the 2004 nominee. While he does pull in more supporters in polls than most other potential candidates, most people seem to think he had his chance. Add to that the fact that not many people were excited by him in the first place (most of his support came from being the anti-Dean and then the anti-Bush), and it doesn't look like the Democrats will be renominating a losing candidate for the first time since 1956.
Joe Lieberman -- after being the 2000 vice presidential nominee and following it up with a poor showing in the 2004 primaries, it looks like Lieberman's presidential dreams have come to an end. He's too much of a hawk to gather a strong following in a national democratic primary.
Blanche Lincoln -- senator from Arkansas, with a voting record more moderate than most democrats. She's viewed more as VP material than as a real candidate, though.
Janet Napolitano -- governor of a "pink" state (swing state that leans toward Republicans), that's viewed as a plus. However, she has a 2006 re-election fight coming up that is unlikely to be easy. A defeat would ruin her chances, but an impressive victory would catapult her up the ranks. I'll be campaigning against her, hopefully not in vain.
Barack Obama -- the newly elected senator from Illinois is viewed as a rising star in the party. He's touted as a moderate, but that seems to be more a matter of demeanor than how he votes. He's unlikely to run in 2008 as he won't even have a full term under his belt.
Nancy Pelosi -- She became the House Minority Leader following the 2002 election, when Dick Gephardt stepped down from that position after holding it for eight years (due in part to the dems' poor performance at the polls, and in part so that he could campaign for president). She's from California, very liberal, and I really haven't heard all that much about her running, she just seems to have her name tossed around as someone who might consider running. I don't really see her gaining much of a following unless the she leads the democrats to take back the House in 2006 (highly unlikely), in which case she might want to stick around and serve as Speaker.
Once again, a quick list of them, sorted by current position, or recently held position, or something, then a list with more details on each.
Senators:
Evan Bayh, Indiana
Joe Biden, Delaware
Hillary Clinton, New York
Chris Dodd, Connecticut
Russ Feingold, Wisconsin
John Kerry, Massachusetts
Joe Lieberman, Connecticut
Blanche Lincoln, Arkansas
Barack Obama, Illinois
Governors:
Rod Blagojevich, Illinois
Mike Easley, North Carolina
Janet Napolitano, Arizona
Bill Richardson, New Mexico
Brian Schweitzer, Montana
Tom Vilsack, Iowa
Mark Warner, Virginia
Others:
Wesley Clark, retired Army general
Howard Dean, Democratic National Committee Chairman
John Edwards, former senator and vice presidential nominee
Al Gore, former Vice President
Nancy Pelosi, House Minority Leader, California
.
I had to work at it a bit, but I managed to come up with another blackjack, which is what I had for the Republicans (though I busted by adding another one here). As I did with the Republicans, I included some that I very much doubt will run.
Evan Bayh -- Indiana senator and former governor. His father had also been a popular politician in the state. He's been viewed as a moderate but lately has been drifting left, presumably to build up his liberal bonafides for a primary run. He's viewed positively by Democrats because it's believed that he could put Indiana, normally a sure thing for Republicans, into their column, along with tilting some other midwest states in their direction (Ohio, most importantly). That said, people do look at presidential voting and gubernatorial/senatorial voting differently -- he wouldn't be a sure thing to deliver his home state (though I wouldn't count him out). More importantly, how well would a "moderate" fare in the primaries, especially in these days of the angry democrats? The 2004 nominees, John Kerry and John Edwards, had the first and fourth most liberal voting records in 2003, respectively. Would dem primary voters support the fourth-least liberal voting record among democrats? Unlikely. However, he could be VP material.
Joe Biden -- has spent over half his life in the Senate after first being elected prior to his thirtieth birthday. He made a run at the nomination in 1988, but withdrew after evidence surfaced that he had plagirized some material. He also considered a run in 2004, finally deciding against it when it was pretty much too late to join the race anyways. He's been around for quite awhile and his time has pretty much come and gone. I read an interesting article in National Journal before saying that presidential wannabes need to make their run within x years (12? 15? I don't quite recall) of first winning office, and he's well beyond that. He will have served 35 years in the Senate by the time of the first primary, and you don't serve that long only to suddenly gain a large following.
Rod Blagojevich -- He won the Illinois governorship in 2002 and is up for re-election in 2006. His name has been tossed around as a rising star of his party. I've heard it said that he'll be in for a tough campaign in 2006, but with the state the Illinois Republican party has been in the last few years, I'll believe it when I see something more concrete, especially thinking of their embarassing showing in the 2004 U.S. Senate contest there (where Alan Keyes made a pitiful showing after their original nominee withdrew following revelations involving Seven of Nine and sex clubs). A drawback could be his name -- people like names they know how to pronounce and/or spell. It's not a disqualifier or anything, but it's harder to gain traction when you're known as "that one guy".
Wesley Clark -- retired general, led the NATO campaign in Kosovo. As a former general, he's viewed as giving the Democrats crediblity on national security. However, during Kosovo, the Russians came in and occuppied an airport there, and he ordered the nearby British general to attack them (the general replied "I'm not going to start World War III for you" or words to that effect), which makes you question Clark's judgement (and/or sanity). He was also rather disliked by his fellow officers. During his fairly brief run at the 2004 nomination, he proved himself at least as gaffe-prone as Dean, he just managed to do it more under the radar. Some claim that it was only because it was his first time running for office, but it strikes me more as a character problem. At any rate, it's uncommon for someone to make president their first elected job, and this guy isn't exactly Eisenhower-class.
Hillary Clinton -- wow, where to start with her. As we all know, she's married to that one guy. She brings a ton of baggage with her (and I don't just mean that she'd return the White House furniture). While her positives (that is, the people with a positive view of her) are high, her negatives are quite high, too. Some people have pointed to her Senate win in the 2000 election as proving her electablity, but a) that was due mostly to New Yorkers' fondness for her husband, and b) she won New York 55-44 in the same election that Al Gore beat George W Bush there 60-35 (results don't total 100 in either case due to rounding and third parties). She won by 11 when Gore won by 25 -- makes her victory a tad less impressive, doesn't it? Now, you can come up with all sorts of excuses for why that is, but the fact remains that a dem winning in New York with a margin of 55-44 is not impressive. Likewise, some people have touted a recent poll on how likely people would be to vote for her in 2008 if she ran; the results were something like this: 18% very likely, 38% somewhat likely, 20% not likely, and 24% a snowball's chance in hell. Now, I made up the numbers based on what I remembered from reading a few weeks ago, but they're pretty close. Lots of headlines pointed to the majority being very or somewhat likely to support her. However, there are two problems with this. First, that the poll was of adults rather than registered or likely voters. Second, "somewhat likely" is much more ambivalent than "not likely" -- if something has a forty percent chance of happening, do you say that it's somewhat likely or not likely? More people would go with somewhat likely. I know that's not the way a voter approaches the issue exactly, but "not likely" is a much firmer negative than "somewhat likely" is a positive. While Hillary does well in all the polls, elected Democrats seem to be uninterested in a second Clinton trying for the White House. Of course, none of them want to say such on the record, so what I've heard is anecdotal, but still. As long as I'm on anecdotal evidence, I recall a girl I knew (who was a definite democrat) saying that she wouldn't vote for Hillary for president, because she's too controversial (scandal plagued, et cetera) and could doom the prospect of a second female president for years to follow (the same girl would vote for Elizabeth Dole, for what it's worth). The Right worries about Hillary, and she seems to have a commanding lead, but the nomination is far from being handed to her. She's also up for re-election in 2006, so we'll see how that goes. Oh, quick note on that -- she's been doing gobs of fundraising and it doesn't look like she'll have a major opponent, meaning she can transfer her extra money (some project $40 million) to a presidential campaign, which would give her an enormous advantage (both in having the money and because having money tends to draw more money).
Howard Dean -- former Vermont governor and current DNC chairman, Dean spectacularly fizzled out in the 2004 primaries. He has a horrible case of foot-in-mouth disease. However, to keep this short, he agreed not to seek the nomination in 2008 when he was seeking the party chair. Some have looked into what it would take to remove him from that position, but unless and until that happens, I won't bother any more with rumors about him running (unless he flat-out says he's running).
Chris Dodd -- the other senator from Connecticut. Much less known than Lieberman, it's believed that the reason he sat out in 2004 was because Joe was running. If Lieberman doesn't run in 2008, then Dodd can make his move. He still suffers from low name recognition, being a senator, and all that stuff. Popular enough that you don't have to search too much to see his name tossed around as a potential candidate, not popular enough to be considered a tier-1 candidate.
Mike Easley -- the North Carolina governor won re-election rather easily in 2004. Winning election twice in a southern state is viewed positively by those who look ahead to general election matchups. However, he's still not well known and not a first tier candidate.
John Edwards -- the 2004 vice presidential nominee for the democrats, he's made no secret about wanting to run again. He was viewed as a moderate, but his voting record -- and his rhetoric -- would indicate otherwise. His charisma also doesn't seem to be as good as it was hyped to be. On the stump, sounded more like a lawyer commercial than a political candidate. He was elected to the Senate in 1998 from North Carolina, and decided not to seek re-election in 2004, when it was quite possible he would have lost. He's made no secret about wanting to run for the nomination again, and he looks certain to attract a certain following, but I doubt he'll win the nomination.
Russ Feingold -- senator from Wisconsin, first elected in 1992, won a third term in 2004 with about 55% of the vote. He's the less-famous half of McCain-Feingold (the campaign finance reform bill, now law). He's popular for the campaign finance reform, but imposes stricter campaign finance rules on himself, which would make it difficult for him to raise enough money for an effective run.
Albert Gore, Jr. -- former senator from Tennessee, failed candidate for the nomination in 1988, twice elected as Bill Clinton's sidekick, and came up just short against George W Bush in 2000. He explored a 2004 run, but didn't have the needed support. He seems to have grown a bit crazed since his close electoral defeat, it seems to have done him psychological harm. Nixon came back eight years after losing to Kennedy to win the presidency, but I don't see Gore doing anything of the sort.
John Kerry -- the 2004 nominee. While he does pull in more supporters in polls than most other potential candidates, most people seem to think he had his chance. Add to that the fact that not many people were excited by him in the first place (most of his support came from being the anti-Dean and then the anti-Bush), and it doesn't look like the Democrats will be renominating a losing candidate for the first time since 1956.
Joe Lieberman -- after being the 2000 vice presidential nominee and following it up with a poor showing in the 2004 primaries, it looks like Lieberman's presidential dreams have come to an end. He's too much of a hawk to gather a strong following in a national democratic primary.
Blanche Lincoln -- senator from Arkansas, with a voting record more moderate than most democrats. She's viewed more as VP material than as a real candidate, though.
Janet Napolitano -- governor of a "pink" state (swing state that leans toward Republicans), that's viewed as a plus. However, she has a 2006 re-election fight coming up that is unlikely to be easy. A defeat would ruin her chances, but an impressive victory would catapult her up the ranks. I'll be campaigning against her, hopefully not in vain.
Barack Obama -- the newly elected senator from Illinois is viewed as a rising star in the party. He's touted as a moderate, but that seems to be more a matter of demeanor than how he votes. He's unlikely to run in 2008 as he won't even have a full term under his belt.
Nancy Pelosi -- She became the House Minority Leader following the 2002 election, when Dick Gephardt stepped down from that position after holding it for eight years (due in part to the dems' poor performance at the polls, and in part so that he could campaign for president). She's from California, very liberal, and I really haven't heard all that much about her running, she just seems to have her name tossed around as someone who might consider running. I don't really see her gaining much of a following unless the she leads the democrats to take back the House in 2006 (highly unlikely), in which case she might want to stick around and serve as Speaker.
Bill Richardson -- former Secretary of Energy under Clinton, it was while he was serving that problems keeping nuclear secrets and the like. Well, at least that such problems came to light. He's seen as more moderate and he is from a swing state -- in fact, New Mexico has been closest in terms of the number of votes seperating the candidates (not the percentage) in each of the last two elections, and was one of only three states that voted for a different party in each of the last two elections. He's considered among the top tier of candidates.
Brian Shweitzer -- he managed to win the governorship in a red state, to his credit, but it required a very unpopular outgoing Republican governor, a lackluster challenger, and having a Republican running mate (for those that don't know, some states have gubernatorial candidates run with candidates for lieutenant governor, much like how presidential candidates have vice presidential running mates) and he still barely broke 50% of the vote, winning 50.44% to 46.02% (two methods of looking for vunerable incumbents involve looking for those who won by less than a 5% margin and those who won with less than 55% of the vote, both of which apply to him (though I guess the second is redundant).
Tom Vilsack -- advantage in that he's from Iowa, whose caucus kicks off primary season. However, a win there could be discounted as home field advantage, which would diminish the positive. Vilsack was allegedly on the short list of potential Kerry running mates. I recall that there's something very unpopular about him, but I can't recall what ... I'll add it in if I can think of it.
Mark Warner -- Virginia governor is term limited so he'll be out of office after the 2005 election (Virginia is weird both in that it has its gubernatorial election the year after the presidential one (New Jersey is the only other state to do that) and that it limits its governors to a single term (the only state I can think of to do that)). He was hyped as a potential challenger to Republican senator and potential 2008 presidential candidate George Allen, but word is that he's said privately that he won't challenge. Has been outspoken about needing to reform the party, which would aid him in the general but could kill him in the primary. It currently looks very much like he'll be running, and he'll probably earn some free publicity by media mentions of each party having an upper tier candidate from the same state (not a very common thing, especially if it led to a matchup between the two in the general election).
That's it for now. In the future, I think I'll go with shorter posts. I'm not a big fan of the ones that last for over 2,600 words.
Labels: Election 2008
posted by DC | 4:18 AM
2 Comments:
What's this about Seven of Nine? She could get the nomination purely on looks, methinks :)
Anyhow, how about a look into the AZ governor's race, even though we all know Janet's going to win anyway :)
Jeri Ryan's ex-husband, Jack Ryan I believe his name was (there have been several Ryans in Illinois politics, most of them disappointing Republicans), won the Republican primary for the senate contest in 2004. However, it came out that in their divorce proceedings, she accused him of taking her to sex clubs and trying to get her to have sex there. He claimed he didn't know what kind of clubs they were, et cetera, but withdrew from the race a few days after the revelation came out.
As for previewing the Arizona governor's race, the Republicans need a candidate first. So far, there's a big list of them not running -- JD Hayworth, Rick Romley, Rick Renzi, Dan Quayle -- and a list of those that some people hope will run or are considering running -- Marilyn Quayle (wife of Dan), AZ Senate President Ken Bennet -- but the only guy saying he'll run so far is Keith DeGreen, who lost a 1988 US Senate race 56-41 in the same election that George HW Bush won the state by about 60-39, so there's not much excitement over him. I'll wait a bit longer before doing much analysis, but maybe that will tide you over.
Post a Comment
<< Home