There are many who view the recent Democratic revolution (we might as well use the grandiose term, too) as little more than an opportunity to more effectively campaign to retake the Presidency in 2008. Given that there is little Congress can do to definitely end the war in Iraq (though plenty they can do to accelerate our departure) beyond cutting off funding for the troops (which Democratic leaders have vowed not to do – foolishly in my view), that is a valid viewpoint. Control of Congress will give us much needed oversight and investigatory powers, which is likely to only further discredit the GOP. But access to the levers of power will also allow Democrats to frame an agenda and prove our ability to create a ‘vision’ for the country.
However, I’ll concede some curiosity as to who’s rising and who is falling in the Presidential firmament of 2008.
I make no bones about the fact that I think the best person for the job is the guy who won in 2000: Albert Gore. His reluctance to place his hat in the ring is entirely expected and good strategy. The GOP can’t turn the entire battery of rhetorical guns on him until he’s announced. He has more incentive than any other candidate to make a late announcement.
The other obvious candidate is Hillary Clinton. She has strong support in the party, is sitting on a massive war chest, and has the savviest political players in her camp. Problem is, people don’t like her much. She has very high negatives, but she’s shown she can win elections – in New York state, at least.
The smell in the room that everyone is pretending to ignore is Senator John Kerry, the 2004 candidate. Many think he’s damaged goods, proven unable to lead the party effectively, and prone to sticking his silver-plated foot in his mouth. But he and Edwards very effectively leveraged the netroots to support candidates for Congress by hammering their ’04 mailing lists for donations to key races through Act Blue.
The Conventional Wisdom is that one of these four is likely to be the nominee for 2008.
Of course, there is also Obama-fever, which may or may not be a factor by 2008. They say that the Senate is 100 guys (though a few are actually girls) who think they should be President. It’s refreshing then to see a freshman Senator come in and disclaim all the hoopla, and say he’s just there to learn the ropes and any Presidential talk will have to wait awhile. Oddly, that seems to have only fanned the flames in Obama’s case.
I like a lot of things about Barak Obama (not the least of which is his really cool name), but I think the expectation that he’ll choose to run for President in 2008, or that he would win if he were nominated is badly misplaced. Firstly, much of his appeal is his overwhelming win in Illinois, a very large, diverse, and moderate state. Two problems with that: his win was exaggerated because he lacked any credible opponent, and his appeal to religious voters is overstated.
Many think that Obama, with his openly religious rhetoric and appeal for bi-partisanship could win in at least the border regions of the South. Ford’s failed Senate bid in Tennesee pretty thoroughly discredits that idea. Ford is every bit as attractive a candidate and every bit as religious, and he only picked up a few percentage points among religious voters while fatally under-performing among Independents as a direct result. The problem is, of course, not the religion of these Democrats, nor how they talk about it – it’s their color. A black man will not win the South; hell, even white evangelical Democrats like Gore, Clinton, and Carter must have their stars align just so to win anywhere in the South now.
So where do the ‘major’ prospects stand now? Recent polling (Nov. 7th, 2006) suggests little one couldn’t guess:
The only surprise is the sheer strength of Barak Obama for someone few had ever heard of as recently as 2003. Only he and John Edwards (also a fresh face on the national political scene) actually gain share when Independents are added, suggesting that both men are doing something right, are simply personally appealing in a way that few other Democrats are, or that less people are sick of them yet.
There may have been a little movement now that Russ Feingold has said definitively he will not seek the Presidency, as has Mark Warner (which is why he’s not in the poll), who may seek the Senate seat of senior VA Senator John Warner if that worthy gentleman retires or seeks the Republican Presidential nomination. One wonders how many voters won’t even notice the change of first name on their ballots.
But who will take the plunge? Already two have seriously vetted the idea and back away from the edge. Are any of the candidates unlikely to make an announcement? We know Gore is tactfully dodging inquiries, while Governor Tom Vilsack of Iowa has already announced. Only the candidates can say for sure, but there is a new political futures market, the Washington Stock Exchange (WSX), similar to the Hollywood Stock Exchange (HSX), which has been so accurate at capturing latent knowledge about movie releases that major studios have contracted for special access to trading information.
According to the latest prices on Presidential announcement stocks, which translates directly from dollar price to percentage odds, with $0.00 equaling 0% chance up to $100.00 equaling a 100% chance:
- Barak Obama is at $93.70 (93%)
- Hillary Clinton is at $90.89 (90%)
- John Edwards is at $87.54 (87%)
- Evan Bayh is at $75.03 (75%)
- Wesley Clark is at $70.06 (70%)
- Bill Richarson is at $69.00 (69%)
- John Kerry is at $59.87 (57%)
Al Gore is not listed. I suspect that at this point, close to launch of the WSX site, these prices are more aspirational than informational. There is a very nice opportunity to short Obama stock. I don’t think the likelihood of his running is anything like 93%. Instead, I think these are closer to popularity rankings. WSX doesn’t use real money, which encourages enthusiasms.
Tradesports.com maintains a real-money political book which works very similarly to WSX in terms of odds to price ratios. Actual money attracts better information. The lines on the 2008 candidates are much different at Tradesports. The overwhelming favorite is Hillary Clinton at $58. The only other candidates over $5 are Gore at $11.2, Obama at $14.3, and Edwards at $8.2. It is telling that the two runners-up to Hillary are both candidates who have either denied any ambition to run or remained very cagey about it. Kerry, who one might expect to be the runner-up to Hillary is trading at just $1.6, far below his VP running-mate Edwards.
Our executive bench is deeply sick and overshadowed by the prospect of President Hillary. We know former Governors win the President quite frequently in the 20th century, yet not a single Governor is in the top five of our Presidential line-up. They are all Senators, who have historically very rarely won election to the Presidency. What the heck is wrong with us?
The folks on the board who are, or have been Governors, are Bill Richardson of NM, Tom Vilsack of IA, Brian Schweitzer of MT, and Howard Dean of VT, John Corzine of NJ, Ed Rendell of PA, and Rod Blagojevich of IL. Richardson is expected to run. Vilsack has announced, Schweitzer, Blagojevich, Corzine, and Rendell have not announced any intent, and Dean is likely disqualified by his chairmanship of the DNC.
I believe that several good candidates, and possibly our nominee will emerge from this group of Governors, if it is not Gore or Hillary. And if it is Gore or Hillary, a former governor is likely to be his/her running-mate. We really need to stop running candidates with no credible executive experience and start running Governors. Gore is acceptable because he was a very active and involved Vice President for 8 years, and now has years of entrepreneurial executive business experience. Hillary on the other hand – I’m not sure that First Lady is the best training ground for a President. But I’m not convinced that we’ll see Hillary run in 2008. She very well may stay in the Senate if she can snatch a leadership position that suits her. In fact, when I think about the Senate leadership, I picture Harry Reid as Majority Leader with Hillary standing right behind him, ready to step up if he stumbles.
Personally, I like the populist style of Brian Schweitzer of Montana for President or Vice President. I think he is a really great dark horse candidate for the party. He has shown that he knows how to win in rural America, which is a skill that Democrats need add back into our institutional DNA; Brian is just the plasmid for the job. Any of these Governor candidates could break out and surprise us. Dean demonstrated that very clearly in 2004. Democrats are hungry for leadership that speaks to our progressive and populist heritage, and appeals to both our common sense and idealism, and that has a record of executive leadership to run on.
A lot of folks here in Arizona have looked at our Governor’s mansion and thought, "Why not?" I don’t think that would happen. Janet is not going to run for President, and I don’t even think she’d accept a nod for VP. The only job she really covets, other than the one she has, is Supreme Court Justice. And that could only happen once a Democrat is in the White House, say, 2010 maybe? That way we don’t have to have Jan Brewer for Governor. Eeech pttui. It burns!
Discover more from Blog for Arizona
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Hilary, Kerry, Gore, : NO (lock them away in the lockbox with howard Dean, too) haha. They are all like movie stars that played one role, and can never be seen differently – they are too negative.
Obama, Richardson, Clark: they seem to have a more international perspective and higher maturity level – maybe I would cross over from the Republican camp to vote for them, especially if they are up against Rudy and maybe even McCain.
Beyond picking a Presidential Candidate right now I feel The Radical Islamic movement thinks it has found a way to sway elections around the world and in the United States especially in 2008. Putting your ear to the ground I hear trouble rumbling that may take everyone by surprize; with open borders, no accountabilty concerning an Illegal population living inside The United States larger than that of Iraq,free trade destroying our industries and wage structures,credit bubbles financed by Communist China and we sending weak signals to Iran and Korea makes the 2008 election cycle a James Bond Thriller “Of Epic Proportion!”
Blagojevich/his administration may not pass the ethics test–
http://cbs2chicago.com/topstories/local_story_311200414.html
I think it is too early to pick an ’08 candidate to support…. I need to hear and read more of what they want to do, and what they have done.
I do know who I WON’T support, however
I know Kerry is out in my book.. just lacks something to be an effective candidate. Obama intrigues me to some extent, but not enough out there about what he has done. Think he sould be a good person to appoint ot a cabinet level position. Hillary has too much baggae to win….
I like John Edwards best. In fact, I supported him in 04. He brings fine personal qualities, a fine intellect and a wonderful awareness of what it means to grow up in a poor, working family. He comes accross as the genuine article. I went to the rally a couple of weeks ago and stood about 2 1/2 hours in the sun to hear him and I was glad I did. When he speaks he has a ring of authenticity, a very human quality, of being of and for people. I greatly respect what he has done with his life since the 2004 election. He could have taken a different path but he chose to find a way to fight poverty and be a voice for the Democratic Party.
I wasn’t aware than Bayh had been Governor. It is certainly a point in his column in my book.
I don’t share Obama fever, but I understand it. In the absence of an attractive senior stateman/woman who the majority of the party can rally behind, the attractive, well-spoken newcomer, who has yet to accomplish anything looks pretty good. If Gore gets drafted or announces, I expect that some of Obama’s glamour will fade.
While I seldom agree with Framer on matters political, in this case, I have to agree with all of his comment.
I view Obama as the Mendoza line for serious consideration. If a year from now, you are not polling near or above Obama, you do not have a serious chance of making the cut going into the primaries. This is doubly true as Hillary is perhaps the most formidable non-incumbant primary candidate ever. She has more money and support lined up NOW than many of the better candidates will see by the end of the primaries.
On the Republican side, it wil be either McCain, Rudy, or Mitt Romney. None of them are overly-partisan flame throwers, and each is capable destroying Clinton for the moderate vote.
I agree that Democrats would be better off finding a way to derail Hillary. I am just not seeing a candidate out of those listed that can accomplish this.
I don’t get the whole Obama cult of personality. He scolded Dems for never putting their faith on display, but he won’t do it himself unless it is a winning situation for him. For example, I would suggest that fighting the odious pro-torture/ anti-habeas bill was definitely a moral issue which translates into what is a matter of faith. The Democratic members of the Senate desperately needed someone to step up and oppose the bill early and forcefully, and what better way then to frame it as- Jesus wouldn’t rubber stamp torture?
Obama was silent until the day before the bill was passed, then he gave a great speech to this exact meme. Well at that point the passage of the bill was already guaranteed, political fallout was minimized (though I would argue that there wouldn’t be any if you fought this from the moral high ground in the first place), and the media frame had already been set. Nothing but a throwaway speech…too little, too late.
Now pretty much all the Dems dropped the ball on this, but unlike Obama, the majority of them didn’t make their bonafides this year as moral scold chastizing me for not speaking my convictions and wearing my faith in public.
Thanks for the post. We’re in the process of adding several new stocks for the ’08 Presidential campaign. Those will be active on the site within the next week or so.
As in 1976 when Jimmy Carter came from no-where,sidetracking the ho-hum Democrats IS where we are going in 2008; we are all waiting and watching;meanwhile as an original Clinton Financial supporter and member of the William J. Clinton Presidential Library as a Founder and Founding Member Iam supporting them in what ever may come. Being a member Nationally of “Drinking Liberally” in my home State of Pennsylvania; talk is there to get Bill Clinton back on the Ballot as a Presidential Candidate and changing or challenging existing Presidential succession Laws.
Michael-
Evan Bayh also served as Governor of Indiana prior to being elected to the U.S. Senate. He has won by big margins in a “red” state, is known for being both socially progressive and fiscally prudent and has been a leader in crafting sound energy policy. He also has a strong background in defense and intelligence, which continues to be a weak area for many Democrats. Bayh’s PAC did extensive grass-roots work in both Indiana and other states in the most recent election. He received plaudits from many for helping to oust three GOP congressmen in Indiana and also had an impact on two congressional races won by Dems in New Hampshire.
I would like to see Bayh at the head of the ticket for all these reasons and more. Go to allamericapac.com to read his bio. He is someone you’ll be hearing about more and he deserves strong consideration.
Governor Sebelius of Kansas would be a strong veep choice as she is a person with the same record of progress in terms of balancing budgets and advocating for the weakest in our society. Schweitzer or Richardson would also be excellent prospects for the same reasons and, like Sebelius, their selection would acknowledge the growing strength of Democrats in the West. Janet would bring all the same attributes to the table, but I don’t think she would be interested in the job and see her running for the Senate or going for that Court appointment instead.
All of this speculation is both fun and premature, I guess. However, it is indisputable that the Democrats winning elections in the last several years have been pragmatic, results-oriented and non-ideological while STILL staying devoted to their principles. That will be a winning description for our ’08 presidential nominee, too, especially since I am certain the GOP has not yet learned its lesson and will nominate someone who will be seen as excessively partisan.