The Morning After

Wow, the night ended much sooner than I was expecting. I am a bit curious as to why the networks were so quick to call Ohio for Obama but slow to call Georgia, South Carolina, and Arizona for McCain ...

There are still several races not called, but let's go with what we have. It looks like my predictions at the presidential level were off in Ohio, Virginia, North Carolina, Florida, and Indiana. The first four of those were easily the four I was least certain of giving to McCain, so I wasn't too terribly shocked, but with Indiana I had never really believed all the talk about it going Obama, it was too Republican, it just didn't make any sense. And it still doesn't. I'm thinking the Chicago political machine snuck across the border.

The Senate race still has three races not called. Well, CNN still hasn't called Georgia, either (what's up with that?). Going on what the CNN website has, Coleman (R) has a 762 vote lead in Minnesota with 99% reporting, Smith (R) has a 48-46 lead in Oregon with 75% reporting, and Stevens (R) has a 48-47 lead in Alaska with 99% reporting. If the Republicans hold on to all of these, they'll do two seats better than my projection, which would make me extremely happy. The Stevens part really surprises me, as he was recently convicted, but if I was an Alaskan, that might make me more likely to vote for him -- he'll get tossed in the clink, and Palin can appoint a replacement. The Oregon one is a bit maddening because, once again, Oregon is taking its sweet time counting its ballots. It really shouldn't take this long, as they mail out ballots to all voters before the election, and should be able to get the vast majority counted and the results ready for release at poll closing time.

Also on the bright side, the Republicans were able to take a few seats away from the Dems in the House after not being able to take a single one from them in 2006. Unfortunately, it was still a net loss of seats (exact total still to be determined).

Final (Pre-Election) McCain vs. Obama Thoughts

I think this race will be considerably closer than most people seem to think.

Before RCP switched Ohio and Virginia from "lean Obama" to toss-up, I was saying that I liked McCain's chances to win all the states that they had as toss-ups. To clarify, I wasn't saying I liked his chances to win in each state; I was saying that I liked his chances to sweep the table and win all the toss-ups.

The problem McCain runs into is that even winning all of them (this time including Ohio and Virginia, but not any that might be added Monday night or Tuesday morning), he's still short of the 270 Electoral Votes necessary to win the election.

Working off of RCP's map linked above, I'm giving all the "solid Obama" to Obama and all the "solid McCain" and "leaning McCain" to McCain. I'll predict the others individually (I might not catch any that switch from one of those categories Monday night or Tuesday morning).

Before we get to those predictions, there are a few considerations. First, many polls are predicting a huge advantage for the Democrats in party ID, which I don't think will hold. I think they'll have the advantage, but not the 10-point one we're seeing in some of these polls (that's nationally, state results may differ). Second, it's interesting to compare early voting turnout this year to 2004. Obama seems to have little advantage over Kerry. Third, while it's just one state, Steve Nathan surveyed a massive number of Nevadan early voters (16,749), and while the 6.12% lead for Obama looks good for him at first glance, the early voting turnout is disproportionately Democrat. Unfortunately, Steve did not ask responders for their party ID, so it's not clear how representative the poll is. Assuming it is representative, this does not look like good news for Obama, as his lead is less than half that of Democrats who have voted. While I'm not sure offhand what the turnout numbers in the state were in previous elections, I know Bush won in 2000 and 2004, and there don't seem to be an inordinant number of Bush-supporting Democrats like you'd find in southern states, so I'd expect turnout much closer to even, probably a few points to the Dems advantage. But if Obama's running 7 points behind the dem advantage ...

Another couple of things to keep in mind, but more in watching election returns than in predicting the outcomes: many states tabulate the early/absentee voting and release those results soon after the polls close as part of their tally; with the Democrats having the advantage there, those early returns will skew in Obama's favor (also the favor of their candidates for Senate, House, and whatever else). Secondly, Obama supporters appear to be much more willing to participate in exit polling, so the exit polls will be skewed in Obama's direction (also useful info to know should those numbers leak early, as they have a habit of doing); part of a survey commission by Fox News showed Obama supporters with about a 12- or 13-point edge (something like 77-64 likely to participate and 34-22 not likely to participate, with Obama supporters leading the former and McCain supporters the latter).

One odd note: If McCain sweeps his solids, leaners, and the toss-ups, plus wins Colorado, we will have a 269-269 tie.

And now, on to the states:

Allocating them as I already did yields a 228-132 Obama electoral edge.

McCain will win his home state (228-142). I don't think this is necessarily the one state not previously covered that he's most likely to win, but if he loses here, I can almost guarantee a blowout.

North Dakota will go to: McCain (228-145)

Montana will go to: McCain (228-148)

Indiana will go to: McCain (228-159)

Georgia will go to: McCain (228-174)

Missouri will go to: McCain (228-185)

Minnesota will go to: Obama (238-185)

North Carolina will go to: McCain (238-200)

Florida will go to: McCain (238-227)

New Mexico will go to: Obama (243-227)

Pennsylvania will go to: Obama (264-227)

Ohio will go to: McCain (264-247)

Virginia will go to: McCain (264-260)

Colorado will go to: Obama (273-260)

Nevada will go to: Obama (278-260)

So, to sum it up, I think Obama will win, but it will be close, and there's a greater chance of a McCain victory than many seem to think.

The Coming Bloodbath

No, not the presidential race -- I'm talking about the Senate.

The Democrats are trying for a filibuster-proof 60 seats. If you had told me this at the beginning of the year, I would have laughed at you. In fact, I did laugh at such claims early this year. Unfortunately, it has become less funny.

Currently, the Dems have 51 seats (counting Lieberman and Sanders). A pickup of nine seats is ... highly unusual. The field is shaping up that way, however.

Republican open seats in Virginia, Colorado, and New Mexico can be kissed goodbye. The corrupt Sen. Ted Stevens of Alaska has been found guilty, and now trails badly in the polls. I will be glad to be rid of him, but I will not be glad to have his seat in Democrats' hands for six years. John Sunnunu in New Hampshire seems nearly a lock to be defeated as well. Gordon Smith (Oregon) and Elizabeth Dole (North Carolina) both trail in the polls. Saxby Chambliss (Georgia) and Norm Coleman (Minnesota) both have leads that are a little too close for comfort. Mitch McConnell (Kentucky), the top Republican in the Senate, hasn't put away his opponent. There's also talk of the election in Mississippi, where appointee Wicker is trying to win election in his own right to finish the rest of Trent Lott's term, but Dem hopes there seem misplaced. Coming into this election cycle, Republicans only really had hopes of taking one seat from the Dems (mary Landrieu's seat in Louisiana, which she won by narrow margins in 1996 and 2002), but those hopes have been dashed.

Basically, the toss-ups of the race come down to Oregon, North Carolina, Minnesota, and Georgia. A sweep of these will give the Democrats 60 seats. I'm currently predicting a split, with the former two being lost. It does worry me that toss-ups tend to break one way or the other across the nation, though (not always unanimously, but it does tend to be lop-sided).

Some pundits have noted that 60-40 isn't everything, that some senators will break with their party. This is true, but I don't for a minute believe that it will be remotely equal. Republicans have several senators that might break with their party against a filibuster. The Democrats, however, are lacking in candidates who will break with their party to support a filibuster, with the possible exception of Lieberman for War on Terror issues. There's an expanded field of Democrats who might not support their party on this issue or that, but I doubt that they'll support a filibuster against it.

One side note: whoever wins the White House, we're going to have at least one vacant Senate seat. McCain's seat will be vacated if he wins, and Obama's and Biden's if they win. While I haven't verified the laws, the former two states have Democrats as governors, so it seems likely that they will appoint like to the Senate. Delaware currently has a Dem governor, but the seat is up for election, with another Dem the prohibitive favorite, which is all a roundabout way of saying that the appointment here would also be a Dem.

Looking ahead to the 2010 elections, the Republicans have little hope to take back the chamber. Possible targets for pickup include Colorado, Nevada, Arkansas, North Dakota, and Indiana, but as you move across the list, a retirement becomes more necessary to Republican chances. Unless 2010 is a horrible year for Democrats, Republicans don't hold a glimmer of hope until 2012, and, right now, I don't think the Republicans will take back the chamber until the 2014 elections at the earliest.

Palin

As the McCain campaign has apparently confirmed his VP selection with the major media outlets, it seems safe to run with this now.

I don't recall what I've posted about Sarah Palin before, but I like her. She's a strong conservative, pro-life, pro-gun, pro-all the good things in life. I've seen a few complaints about her signing tax increases as governor, but they were modest and were aimed at fiscal responsibility for the state, not as sock-it to the rich or expand the welfare state moves.

I didn't think it was likely to be her, as she was only elected governor in 2006, and she also just recently gave birth to a son with Down's Syndrome. Neither are disqualifying by any means, but I thought (and, I admit, kinda hoped) for someone with more experience (though she's definitely a better choice than several of the more experienced names I'd heard tossed about), and it seemed like she might want to stay closer to home with the baby (yeah, she'll bring him to Washington, but VP involves a lot of travel, etc., etc.).

Her eldest son is scheduled for deployment to Iraq, but that might be postponed or something. I used to believe it would be great for more sons of politicians to serve combat duty (when there's an active combat to serve in), but I've come to realize that they can do a lot more harm than good. If he was the son of a relative-nobody congressman, then big deal. However, as the son of a major party vice presidential nominee, that puts a big target on his back. If terrorist factions discover where he's at, it makes him a major target, and, as such, exponentially increases the danger to those around him. Of course, if his deployment is deferred (cancelled, whatever), you'll have groups from the left who don't understand this (or do, but like cheap political points) whining about privilege and the like.

I've heard of reports that someone on CNN has been talking about her "inexperience" -- are they doing the same for Obama?

There's talk of a recent "scandal" for Palin back in Alaska; the allegation is that she fired the public safety commissioner because of his refusal to fire a state trooper. The trooper in question is her former brother-in-law, was apparently abusive towards her sister, drank beer in his patrol car, and is alleged to have fired a taser at his stepson and threatened to kill Palin's father. At any rate, she never asked him to do so, but several family members and close friends had talked to him about the trooper (it's unclear if even they made explicit calls for his firing), and there was talk about the possible security risk he posed to the governor. Mostly, however, this seems like the kind of legislative investigation launched when a majority of the legislature doesn't like the executive rather than something with substance.

Politically speaking, I'd say picking a woman was a great move. This should win over at least a few disaffected Hillary supporters, though I would not expect any sort of massive movement. I had briefly worried yesterday after someone had mentioned Kay Bailey Hutchinson, a "moderate" senator from Texas (among other things, she supports Roe v. Wade), and had even mentioned to a friend who asked for my thoughts on McCain's possible VP choice that if he was to go for a woman, I'd prefer Sarah Palin, but was worried that Hutchinson would suit his style. Pawlenty also had a bunch of buzz last night; I'd been touting him as a possible McCain VP choice from the time he endorsed last year (though I didn't think McCain would win the nomination at that time). Mostly, I'm just glad it wasn't Ridge (who has been mentioned a lot recently for some reason; he would have made some sense when he was touted in 2000, but not really any now after his forgettable stint as Secretary of Homeland Security), Hutchinson, Crist, or a few others. I never bought the Lieberman hype -- yeah, McCain personally likes Lieberman, and is grateful for his endorsment, but, even if Lieberman was willing to accept, McCain isn't crazy enough to pick him.

I was starting to think that McCain had slightly-better than even shot at winning in November earlier this month, and, now that the VP choices have been made, I'd give him an even better shot.

Also, Sarah Barracuda is an awesome nickname.

March 4 Primaries

Caucus results from Texas are not in yet, but we can draw a few conclusions already.

The first, and most important, is that Clinton survives and this thing is almost certainly going to the convention (which will make it an unconventional convention).

Good news for Obama is that Hillary did not win very big. She won Ohio by about ten points, and, based on the numbers I ran last night, looks to pick up 77 of the 141 delegates that were at stake there, for a net gain of 13 (UPDATE: it looks like I had initially reversed the results of one congressional district and Obama made barely enough late gains in another (12 and 19, respectively, I believe) that Hillary only received 75 out of 141 for a net gain of 9). Earlier in the night, people were talking about a gain in the 22-24 range. Hillary won the Texas primary, but not by a huge margin, and the delegate breakdown appears to be 65-61. It looks like Obama will win the caucus, and there's a good chance that his delegate margin will cancel out Hillary's margin from the primary (and possibly the net benefit for Hillary that came from her winning Rhode Island and Obama winning Vermont). So, final breakdown, Hillary gains about those 13 from Ohio, which is not much of a gain at all.

All the news sources will report that Obama still leads the delegate count, and especially the pledged delegate count. However, they neglect to mention that this is only if Michigan and Florida are not counted. When they are counted, Hillary leads in delegates, and she still leads in delegates when all the "uncommitted" delegates from Michigan are added to Obama's column (and it does not strike me as unlikely that at least a few of those will go Hillary's way). True, the current rules bar the entire delegations of Florida and Michigan from the convention, but that would be, shall we say, messy.

The way I see it, the nomination hinges on what happens with Florida and Michigan. If they are seated in full with the results of their respective January primaries, Hillary wins. If they're barred, Obama wins, and wins ugly (and to think of all the talk about Hillary winning ugly). A revote is something of a wild card. I could see Florida shaking out similarly to how it did, but Michigan seems likely to swing Obama's way, or at least move a bit in his direction, unless voters there are disgruntled about him removing his name from the ballot. Moreover, in Michigan, crossover voting is allowed, so a revote could allow people to vote in both the Republican primary (in January) and the Democrat one whenever the do-over is held. I heard about a DNC offer to pay for a new primary or caucus in Florida (I forget which), but the money offered would only cover a fraction of the normal number of precincts.

Once again, the democrats got themselves into this mess by crafting a stupid rule to bar delegations from states that selected delegates before Super Tuesday, except for a few privileged states that were not penalized at all (New Hampshire and South Carolina; I forget if Iowa and Nevada were granted exceptions or if the caucus system allowed them an end-run around the rule). Republicans had a more sensible policy of penalizing every state that selected delegates before Super Tuesday (except that it allowed that caucus loophole) by cutting the size of its delegation in half. Under the Republican rule, states were not denied representation, and were penalized equally (except for that dumb caucus loophole). Under the Democrats' rule, well, to be Orwellian about it, all states are equal, but some are more equal than others. It's part of the rank hypocrisy of the party -- they purport to stand for equality, but they're really the party of privilege.

Romney Drops Out

Boy, that sure was ironic (see the end of my last post for context on the complete misuse of ironic).

Super Tuesday

The media still isn't reporting exactly how many delegates each candidate won on the day, which seems like a mix between uncertainty over some of the outcomes and just not being on the ball. With that in mind, I'm unable to from a full picture of what went on, but I'll go ahead with what seem like reasonable projections of how that will all shake out.

First, my own experience -- I showed up at my polling place around 2:30pm, in the midst of something of a rush (several cars pulled in right before me and another immediately following). It was the longest wait I've ever had to vote, but not all that bad. Just over 300 ballots had been turned in before mine, though I can't speak as to the breakdown between Republicans and Democrats (though based on unopened packages of ballots I saw, along with the stack of ballots they were handing out, I'd guess it wasn't a large split, maybe 160-140). The lady started to hand me a ballot for the Dems before I said I was a Republican. At least three people seemed to have problems voting in just the time I was there. One person had her old address on her driver's license, and was asked to show two items with the new address; she only had one and said she had to leave for work, and left without voting (I believe she could have cast a provisional ballot, but the poll workers were more interested in getting something else with her current address before she left). Another woman wasn't on the rolls, but said that it had always been her polling place and was directed to another woman for assistance (not sure what happened there, but I'm guessing a provisional ballot, unless they discovered that her polling place had changed). I didn't catch what happened with another woman, but it seemed like she was a Democrat who had wanted to vote in the Republican primary. It was my first time voting at this new location, which is a Baptist church on the same street as the Baptist church that was my last polling place. Oh, and, yes, I did vote for Fred Thompson.

As to the results, I said the other day that Romney would perform "surprisingly well" in Arizona, and the buzz was certainly about that early in the evening, but that was partially because of bad exit polling that showed him tied with McCain. Last I checked, with over 90% of the vote counted, McCain led him 47% to 34%. McCain trounced Romney in delegates, as expected, but the biggest surprise was Huckabee, who spent a good portion of the night leading Romney in projected delegates. While Romney supporters are free to rejoice that McCain did not do as well as he might have, it really doesn't help them that the beneficiary was Huckabee.

As for the Democrats, Obama won more states, which will probably generate more headlines, but Clinton won the more important ones. I don't have the numbers in front of me at the moment, but I ran them earlier, and with about 1680 delegates at stake, the states Clinton won had just over 1000, while the ones Obama won had just over 640, with New Mexico too close to call. With just under of third of those delegates not yet projected to either candidate, Clinton has only a slight lead in delegates won, but I expect that to grow some (though not to a 1000-640 advanatage). As I said would be the case, it looks like Clinton has won the day, but by such a narrow margin that this race could drag out for some time. Oh, and don't fall the "analysis" that came out before Tuesday, saying that, given delegate projections based on polls, Clinton would have to win 70% of the delegates after Super Tuesday to clinch the nomination; it ignores the "super delegates" (Dem officeholders and assorted others) in counting her delegates, but not in counting the number of delegates she'd need for a majority.

And the Nominees Are ...

While it's hardly formal yet, we seem to be looking at a McCain-Clinton election. Barring something major, McCain has the Republican nomination wrapped up; there's simply no way Romney (or Huckabee, or Ron Paul) manage to recover and secure the nomination, barring events that would be bizarre even by the standards of this election cycle.

It's less clear that Clinton will be the nominee, but signs are certainly pointing in that direction. Edwards dropping out before Super Tuesday (which surprised me) does not help her, but seems unlikely to stop her. Florida seems like the most instructive state when looking ahead to Feb 5, and it saw Clinton pulling about 50% of the vote with Edwards still on the ticket. Yes, there was very little "campaigning" done by Democrats there, but I'm inclined to believe that campaigning tends to be overrated in such races (except when it comes to a (perceived) lack of campaigning when other candidates are campaigning), plus, with all the states voting next Tuesday, there's very little time for campaigning in any of them, let alone all of them. Hillary's other problem comes in the form of the party rule that assigns delegates from each state on a proportional basis. While McCain, on the back of several winner-take-all primaries on Tuesday, will deliver a knockout blow to Romney, Hillary is poised to win more delegates, but hardly in knockout fashion. It will turn into more a matter of how long Obama wants to drag things out. Assuming he doesn't drop out after Tuesday (which I don't currently think he will, but, well, I didn't think Edwards or Giuliani were going to be dropping out one day after Florida), the February 12 states look very favorable to him (Virginia, Maryland, and, it's not a state, but the District of Columbia votes as well), which likely translates into dragging this whole thing into March (at least March 4, when the big prizes of Ohio and Texas vote, along with the smaller prizes of Vermont and Rhode Island).

Obama could try to drag the whole thing to the convention. While I think Hillary will achieve a majority of all delegates by that point, I'll downplay that assumption and go along with this scenario. I do not see it going well for the Democrats. Michigan and Florida will try to seat their delegates, and, if they don't, it will be bad press for the party. The Republicans are on firmer ground here, as they penalized every state that selected delegates before February 5 (although this still allowed for the sham of Iowa, and, to a lesser extent, Nevada, holding caucuses but not being penalized because they didn't officially select any delegates). The Democrats, on the other hand, picked and choosed which states they would sanction and which they would not (they allowed the states that claim a traditional spot in the process to vote early, no matter how tenuous the tradition). Moreover, Republicans penalized states by halving their delegations, while Democrats did so by barring the entire delegation. Once again, bad news for the democrats. If they let the delegates in, it benefits Hillary enormously as she gains 192 delegates and Obama only gains 80 (there are also 55 "uncommitted" delegates, which I think will break in Obama's favor but are likely to be split). If they let in the delgates, Obama's people will complain, and if they don't, the Clintons will complain some, but mostly leave it to the press to make their case for them. As much as I like rules and order, the Clintons have the better case here, due to the boneheaded way the DNC handled the situation. Playing favorites with the states and an outright ban on seating the delegates for those states that were punished were both bad ideas. Howard Dean, if he has any sense (I said if), must be hoping for Clinton to put this thing away and he doesn't have to worry about this nightmare situation where he's stuck with two bad choices.

As for me, I'll be sitting out the 2008 Presidential election. Oh, sure, I might decide to write-in Fred Thompson or something, but I'm not voting for McCain and I'm certainly not voting for Hillary (or, should he actually get the nomination, Obama). I'll still be voting down-ballot; with any luck, we'll get Mitchell out, and there are always a slew of propositions, judicial retentions, state Congress, and other such races. One note on the judicial retentions -- please do not vote straight yes like some people do. Some of these guys actually deserve to be thrown out, but nobody ever is because of all the people who vote straight yes.

On Tuesday, I'll probably vote for Fred Thompson in the Republican primary. His name is almost certainly still on the ballot, and McCain's going to win in a landslide, so it doesn't matter much. Do look for Romney to have a "surprisingly strong" finish in Arizona; there's a large Mormon population here, and McCain has ticked off his share of Arizona Republicans.

Early Thoughts on Iowa Results

For the Democrats, I was surprised how far ahead Obama pulled as the results came in. An eight-point win was much larger than pretty much anyone was expecting. Edwards finished barely ahead of Hillary, though the number of delegates to the national convention should come out even, and it might be spun as a tie for second. Worth remembering is that for the Democrats in Iowa, raw vote totals are not reported, only the total number of county convention delegates selected, so results that close say very little about whether more voters supported Clinton or Edwards. Given the ability of supporters of minor candidates to switch their votes, it seems likely that Clinton had more supporters in the first round than Edwards. Also, contrary to what I posted previously, it seems the second choice for more of these minor candidate supporters ended up being Obama. I just pass along what I hear. I watched part of the results on FNC, and saw Bill Kristol say that Obama has a better than even shot at the nomination, though Clinton still has a shot, and Edwards has almost none. This seems like a sound verdict to me, especially given the margin he won by. Less sound were statements along the lines of "two-thirds of caucus-goers voted against Hillary"; saying that the same cold be said of Obama or Edwards is overly simplistic, as there was something to the "anti-Hillary" vote talk, but there are still supporters of Obama and Edwards for whom Hillary is their second choice.

On the Republican side, Huckabee blew out Romney, no question about it. This damages Romney in New Hampshire, where McCain is likely to win now. Essentially, I think Romney's campaign is going to sink like the Titanic, with Iowa as the iceberg. Many Ron Paul supporters said their support would show through in Iowa, and, well, it didn't. They did manage to win one county (Jefferson), though, the only candidate besides Romney and Huckabee to do so. The soft third-place finish for Thompson is not good. It's certainly better than the fourth place he could have fallen to (and some pre-caucus polls showed him in), but, still, not good. On the other hand, if you consider the good press McCain has been getting, and the lousy press Thompson has been getting (rarely substantive, mostly criticizing his campaigning, or late reports that he would drop out after Iowa, which tend to depress support and which his campaign vigorously denied). Looking at what has become a longshot campaign for Thompson, I have to think a knockout of Romney is better for him than a knockout of Huckabee, because while it's believed that the evangelicals that make up Huckabee's base are more likely to support Fred than any other candidate, Mitt has been trying to claim the conservative mantel in this race, and has built his support on being the "electable conservative" and Thompson is really the only other candidate who can claim to be a conservative (a more solid claim that Romney, based on track record), leaving the whole "electablity" issue, which I think he could conquer if he'd start reaching 20% finishes rather than low-teens. McCain is helped because Romney is hurt. Giuliani is hurt on the one hand because he's an afterthought of the newscycle, but helped on the other because Iowa and New Hampshire will almost certainly be split (and, although nobody's really paid attention to it, Wyoming could go to a third candidate (Romney is the only major candidate with real campaign organization in the state, and Fred Thompson is the only other major candidate to visit, although I haven't seen any recent polls, and results could be screwy as Duncan Hunter has been active there and Ron Paul supporters are running wild (though, once again, lacking in polls, I'm inclined to believe that they're louder than their numbers would indicate, as they are everywhere else))). Huckabee is obviously helped by winning the state, and winning it convincingly. So, there you go. A nifty map of Iowa GOP results by county is available here. The biggest news on the GOP side has to be the damage to the Romney campaign.

In other news, Chris Dodd has decided to drop out. Or, as Chevy Chase used to say on SNL, "In other news, Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead."

Thoughts on the Democrats' Primary

Due to party rules, every state in the Dem primary process (both primary and caucus states) assign delegates proportionally. I'm working off memory here, but this is done both on the congressional district and statewide level, with a 15% threshold. The party also has about twice as many delegates to their national convention (which is rather necessary for the proportional allocation system to work). In Iowa, there's another wrinkle of difference from the Republicans; they hold an initial vote and then allow the supporters of candidates who do not receive 15% support to switch their support to another candidate. This looks to benefit Edwards, as he's the overwhelming second choice of minor-candidate supporters according to a recent poll (between him, Obama, and Hillary, the breakdown was on the order of Edwards 60%, Hillary and Obama 20% each).

What each candidate needs to win the nomination:

Clinton: A win in Iowa would practically guarantee her the nomination. She's not out if she doesn't win, though. I think a third-place finish might actually benefit her more than a second-place finish, as it would keep two candidates viable as the "anti-Hillary" for later contests. If she does finish second, I think an Edwards win would benefit her more (or, hurt her less). She currently has sizable leads in Nevada and Florida, but early struggles could change that.

Obama: A win in Iowa is very important for him. He's running close to Hillary in New Hampshire (three of the four polls in the RCP average have him trailing by four points, while the fourth bizarrely has him trailing by 17), and a win in Iowa could give him the momentum to win in New Hampshire. Having these two wins under his belt would likely steer the nomination his way.

Edwards: Once again, a win in Iowa is very important. However, Edwards seems the least likely to turn an Iowa win into a nomination. He's not really competitive in New Hampshire, which will be a momentum killer. He's even polled poorly in South Carolina, which is supposed to be his home turf (it was certainly played up that way in 2004, when he won it), where Clinton and Obama each attract about a third of the electorate, while Edwards hovers around the threshold level. I have an easier time seeing any of the five major Republican candidates getting their party's nomination than Edwards getting his. That's fine, though, as Edwards's campaign does more to damage the country than any other. It's like having the negatives from all the candidates rolled into one.

Thoughts on the Republican Primary

I intend to get this, along with a similar post for the Democrats, up before the Iowa caucus. I also intend to put up a post on the primary process in general, but that might not be until after Iowa.

This primary is odd in that you could make a case for any of the five major candidates winning the nomination. I realize that the Dems had six "major" candidates in 2004 (working off the top of my head, Dean, Gephardt, Kerry, Edwards, Clark, and Lieberman), but it was hard to make the case for all of them at the start of the new year (Lieberman because the party had turned strongly anti-war, and Gephardt because he was entirely invested in Iowa with no support anywhere else, other than his home state of Missouri (less well positioned for the domino effect than Kerry)). There were even some similarities as far as candidates putting their emphasis on Iowa or New Hampshire. However, I'll leave any further comparisons for another day.

Before going on to the candidates, I should add a few notes on how the delegates are selected. While the Democrats allocate delegates based on the proportion of the vote each candidate receives (more on how that's done in the post focusing on them), the Republicans have a few different methods of selecting delegates (and, if memory serves, do not use the proportional allocation anywhere). The first is the winner-take-all state primary/caucus; as the name implies, the statewide winner of this contest wins all the delegates for that state. The other popular method (which, if I recall correctly, is used in more states, but I'd have to look it up) is basically a winner-take-all election at the congressional district level; whoever wins in a congressional district gets all three delegates for that district (I believe the statewide winner gets three delegates as well). In this form of election, the final vote count isn't as important as where the votes come from. California, for instance, uses this system, and with 53 congressional districts, the results could be interesting. Some have noted that this could be Ron Paul's best chance for some delegates, as he could win the district with very few Republicans, like that of Nancy Pelosi. Also, under party rules, all the states selecting candidates in January forfeit half their delegates to the party convention. There's a possibility that the rule will be reversed and all the delegates admitted, and there's also the possibility that this could affect who wins the nomination (though the latter is unlikely).

First up, Romney: Actually, one further comparison to 2004 on the other side -- Romney is the candidate most likely to get a domino effect that turns a seemingly competitive primary into a runaway, like Kerry, and even comes from the same home state. Romney is the candidate most heavily invested in the "traditional" method of acquiring the nomination, competing hard in both Iowa and New Hampshire and then riding the strength of his early victories to the nomination. However, an early loss could derail his whole campaign. If he's any worse than a close second in Iowa, he's likely to lose New Hampshire, and with it, the nomination. It's not so much a matter of delegate count, as only three small states will have voted or caucused by then (Wyoming has a caucus on January 5 that has received very little attention; last I saw, Romney looked good in the polling, but will anyone care if he wins?). Romney needs the momentum from these early contests, and while other candidates can "win" without winning them, anything less than a win will definitely be a loss for Romney.

Second up, Huckabee: I'll make this simple: Huckabee needs to win Iowa. A close second might help him, but it's more likely to leave him as a hanger-on with no hope of winning the primary. Huck is not going to win New Hampshire, plain and simple, and essentially needs to build on an Iowa win to then win South Carolina, and hope that the momentum there carries the day in Florida and helps him on "Super-Duper Tuesday" on February 5, when nearly half of the Republican delegates are up for grabs. As far as New Hampshire goes for Huck, third place would probably constitute a "win" for him. I have a hard time seeing Huckabee win the nomination, as he seems more interested in talking to Iran than in talking to half the Republican base. He could garner enough support to result in a fun convention, though.

Giuliani: His campaign has been the antithesis of Romney's: forget the early states. Giuliani basically plans to bide his time until Florida and Feb 5, go for the big prizes, and ride them to the nomination. His campaign points out the good poll numbers he has in those states. However, I -- and I'm far from alone on this -- doubt that his support will hold in those states through the early contests. Giuliani is high partially on name recognition, which becomes less of a factor in each state as its primary nears. Moreover, all the buzz and momentum will be going to other candidates. While pretty much everyone concedes that he'll win New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut on February 5 (which are all statewide winner-take-all primaries), it's less certain how well he'll do in the other states where he currently leads (and even if he receives the most votes in California, he won't necessarily win the most delegates). Iowa is pretty much a non-factor for his campaign, though beating McCain would be a small plus, and finishing third would be an even bigger one (though I wouldn't bet on that). Editted to add: I've noticed that a few recent polls show him in sixth in Iowa; that's an embarassment that he'll want to avoid.

McCain: Iowa is also a non-factor for McCain, barring a surprise third-place finish. New Hampshire, however, is huge, and he pretty much needs to win there to have any hope of winning the nomination. Beyond New Hampshire, he hopes to do well in Michigan, carry the momentum into Florida, and emerge as a consensus candidate.

Thompson: Thompson's path to the nomination is a bit of a strange one. The earliest state he has any chance of winning is South Carolina. He pretty much needs a second, or possibly even a strong third, in Iowa, and then to pick up supporters of other candidates as they drop out (either officially or are just seen as no longer viable). Last I saw, Thompson is the second choice for the largest number of Republican primary voters. He really needs either Romney or Huckabee to receive a knockout blow in Iowa. While I haven't seen any breakdown as far as who supporters of each candidate rank as their number two, it seems likely that Romney and Huckabee voters are more likely to have Thompson as their number two than McCain or Giuliani supporters (Giuliani and Huckabee are pretty well polar opposites, so only a very small number of supporters for one would have the other as their second choice; Romney and Huckabee supporters in general seem to be less likely to support McCain or Giuliani, plus some bad blood seems to be brewing between the two campaigns, leaving Thompson as the beneficiary; McCain and Giuliani supporters seem more likely to support the other, but hardly seem likely to reject Thompson altogether). Essentially, Thompson would be the compromise candidate, the one backers of all the others could agree upon.

There remains a small chance that no candidate would receive the majority of delegates needed to win the nomination outright. Assuming that no candidate has, say, 49% of the delegates either, then a brokered convention is entirely possible. I think Thompson is most likely to emerge the winner in such a scenario, because, as stated above, he's the one candidate that everyone else can agree upon. Romney would be the second-most likely to win in this scenario. Of course, should Romney have 40% of the delegates going into the convention, the math changes, and he becomes most likely to emerge as the candidate.

Currently, it's much easier to make a case for why each candidate will not win the nomination than why they will. Iowa will clear things up a bit, and New Hampshire will clarify them more. After Feb 5, I should be able to make a more confident prediction of who the nominee will be.

Editted to add: Rich Lowry throws out some numbers on what would be good finishes for each of the major candidates in Iowa.

2008 Presidential stuff

John J. Miller has an article on NRO on what Republican presidential aspirants need to do in 2006.

In May and June of last year, I did a write-up of various names being thrown about as possible presidential contenders for each party:
Republicans (plus a mention of Huckabee here and here as I forgot him in the first post)
Democrats
These could use some updating, but I'll hold off as we're still more than two years from the first primary vote. I'll probably update in the Spring.

Back to the article, though, it mentions Tim Pawlenty (governor of Minnesota) as a potential running mate. I've seen many mentions of governors as potential running mates in 2000 and 2004, but the thought suddenly occurred to me: "When was a governor (or former governor) last a vice-presidential nominee?" Well, it turns out that in the second half of the 20th century, there were only two nominees that were governors or former governors, and, coincidently, both were in 1968. Spiro Agnew, then-governor of Maryland, was the Republican nominee, and Edmund Muskie (former governor of Maine) was the nominee for the Democrats. As Agnew won and was re-nominated in 1972, you could technically count it as three, but I'm sticking with two. Exactly how much this means, I'm not sure, but it does seem that governors are not quite the popular running mates they're portrayed as.

Also, I notice that the National Journal poll came up with the same Republican front-runner that I've been going with, which always makes me happy (the poll was of well-connected people rather than your normal telephone poll of Joe Schmoes).

Huckabee and Tax Me More

Well, first I somehow leave Mike Huckabee off my list of potential 2008 Republican candidates. Then, when I mention him in a later post, I somehow neglect to mention one of the coolest things about him. They were having budget shortfalls down in Arkansas (as just about every state was), and the dems, naturally, wanted to raise taxes, especially on the "rich" (there's a problem with referring to people in the various tax brackets as rich or poor, because it's an income tax, not a wealth tax (for instance, a person making $20,000 a year could win the second prize playing Powerball, and make $200,000 (though lose about half to taxes), make the top income tax bracket one year -- thus qualifying him as "rich" to some -- and then fall back to the $20,000 a year -- making him "poor" again)). Well, Huckabee wouldn't hear of it, so when the dems started saying they could afford to pay more in taxes, he created the "Tax Me More Fund" through which a person who felt he was undertaxed could pay more money. Naturally, there were very few takers. He told the dems to put their money where there mouth was, and while at least one of them went ahead and did it, most of the others somehow didn't feel so undertaxed anymore.

Now, while this was mostly a victory of rhetoric, it did have some practical results. Taxes stayed low, and the legislature looked towards budget cuts instead, which resulted in the normal economic benefit and greater financial freedom for taxpayers. The fund has been copied in Virginia and Massachusetts. Somehow, though, politicians such as John Kerry and Barney Frank (both of Massachusetts) who always complain that Bush isn't taxing them enough, have felt perfectly comfortable paying the lower tax rates in Massachusetts. Frank even said “I don’t trust the legislative leadership and Gov. [Mitt] Romney to make the right decisions, so I’ll donate the money myself, probably to some health clinics in New Bedford that are going to get hit hard in the new budget.” Hmm, isn't it strange that while he doesn't trust government to make all the right spending decisions, he thinks everyone else should? There are those (like myself) who believe that the federal government should do the same thing, either through executive order by the President (akin to how Huckabee created the original fund in Arkansas), or by passing it through Congress. They could simply make a spot on the 1040 where taxpayers could check if they wish to pay a higher amount. It could be done like in Massachusetts, where they'd pay the amount they would have owed under the previous tax rate (that before Bush's tax cut in this case), or (as I believe it is done in Arkansas) pay however much more they think is fair. This would not be a big money maker, judging by its previous application (and common sense), but it would make liberals put their money where there mouth is, and might just get them to shut their big mouths for once (just about every member of Congress would qualify as rich, and those that didn't are at least upper-middle class).

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.

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.

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.