Election 2008--It's Not Even Two Years Away
Now that we've got the 2006 elections out of the way, it's almost overdue to start gearing up for 2008. Helping us along on that count, a few presidential hopefuls (or not) have started to make their plans known.
Over on the Democratic side, we've had more recusals than those joining the race. Virginia Governor Mark Warner, who'd been highly touted for the job, announced he wasn't going to run a month ago. There was a lot of speculation about why he made that decision (was Hillary too strong? was he afraid of Obama?) after his stated excuse--The Washington Post wrote, "He said he did not want to put his 'real life' on hold for the next two years"--wasn't accepted as the full story. His announcement also didn't do much to dissuade his supporters at Draft Mark Warner.
Today Warner was joined by Wisconsin Senator Russell Feingold in choosing not to run. He released a statement to that effect but then elaborated on it in a diary post at Daily Kos earlier this morning. He doesn't say as much, but the Senate's return to Democratic control has to be a factor in his decision. Feingold entered the Senate in 1992, so except for roughly three years, Feingold has spent his Senate career in the minority. The new prospects of greater senatorial power and influence have to hold some sort of seductive attraction for him and other Democratic senators.
As far as I know, only Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack has officially tossed his hat into the ring on the Democratic side. There's a new governor-elect as of Tuesday, so Vilsack won't be in office much longer and will be able to put all his energies into the race. He's a good, solid governor in a nice Midwestern state, but he hasn't done that much one way or another to distinguish himself as a presidential hopeful. Mark Warner had been getting a lot of attention, so with his departure, perhaps Vilsack saw room for another governor on the field. As long as the front-runners seem to consist of Hillary, Obama, and Kerry, expect to hear about how sitting senators can't get elected. We haven't elected a sitting senator in forty-six years, and since then three or four have run and lost (I'm hedging the number because although I'd count Dole in '96, technically he resigned his seat during the campaign so was officially a private citizen when he lost to Clinton). I don't know whether that's true or not, but the idea of it certainly puts automatic luster on Democratic governors. New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson also seems to be looking to get a piece of that action.
Filling out the Democratic field is Senator Joe Biden, who I absolutely refuse to count with Clinton, Obama, and Kerry as a potential Senate frontrunner. He's far too compromised, and even though it's been eighteen years since he last ran for president, that's not long enough for the press to have forgotten his little problems with plagiarism. Non-Senate frontrunners would have to include Al Gore and John Edwards. Gore still seems to be playing it cagey, not wanting to commit one way or the other. He may be realistic enough to realize that if he jumps in, he'll again be an immediate target of the press, who never seemed to tire of using him as a punching bag before and after the 2000 campaign. He's regained some respectability since, but not necessarily with journalists and pundits. Perhaps he feels he'll do better with some sort of popular groundswell rising to call for him to run. He'd definitely be in a stronger position if that happened, but I'm not sure any of us should hold our breath for that happening. Edwards, on the other hand, seems to be doing everything toward another presidential run short of making an actual announcement. At the same time, he's been keeping a low profile, so when he does jump in, he may seem like a breath of fresh air, even though he's not. And to return to the Seante again quickly, Indiana's Evan Bayh, who doesn't have much name recognition among the public yet, is also acting like a soon-to-be presidential candidate.
I was planning on looking at the Republican field (which, admittedly, interests me far less), but I'm soon on my way out for the evening, and Mrs. Talk Talk Talk Talk Talk puts a much higher value on that at the moment, so the Repubs will have to wait.
6 Comments:
I think the 2008 election is the Democrats to lose UNLESS they nominate Hillary, who as we all know is toxic to about 50% of the electorate. It's surprising that Al Gore is flying so quietly under everyone's radar: He's the guy who will ultimately stop the Hillary express. He was shafted in 2000, was right on Iraq, has the experience, and has been a true visionary and leader on the environment.
www.minor-ripper.blogspot.com
Ripper, can you find any video of Gore being visibly electrifying? He strikes me as a guy who has an excellent mind but lacks the showmanship of a winner.
Some video evidence to the contrary would do a lot to change my mind.
Your commentary/post seemed oddly John Edwards free. His latest book is due this month and in polling he runs ahead of Kerry and equal with Gore but Behind Clinton and Obama.
Vilsack polls behind them all, even in his home state.
O' and I'd also like to second Mike re Gore sad lack of charisma—which by the way is in no way defined as a person who says things people agree with (and if it did democrat would stand a chance against Chuck Hagel) And I’d like to add a heartfelt …You are freakin’ kidding about Clinton, right?
Could someone please name a state that Gore or Kerry won that she'd loose that they won (or wouldn’t loose to McCain) because I can think of at least three that neither even had a shot at that she’d have a good chance of winning plus two more where they came close where she’d probably be able to close the deal? Is either capable of raising more money? I mean, are there any objective estimates and or facts to support the otherwise ludicrous idea that a former vice president, polling 5 points behind a first term senator, has a better shot at the presidency than the person polling ten points above that?
http://www.pollingreport.com/2008.htm#misc
Polls are useless this far out. People tend to choose the names they've heard of, which tend to be the names that keep getting repeated. So far, we've only got one candidate taking actual steps toward a run, and hardly anyone outside of Iowa has ever heard of him. For some real fun, take a look at Polling Report.com from about four years ago, the same distance from 2004 that we are from 2008. My favorite is a Washington Post poll from November 21-24, 2002, that's about halfway down the page. Joe Lieberman is up by 13 points over his nearest rival, Tom Daschle. Four points farther down is Dick Gephardt, and a point under him is John Kerry--Lieberman has three times as many points as Kerry. A lot of good it did him once they actually started campaigning.
Normally I'd agree, but this year you have to admit that Obama is the least well known of the democrats showing up in national polling. I mean; Gore, Clinton, McCain, Giuliani and Kerry are about as famous as they’re likely to get. Therefore your point only applies to outliers like Bill Richardson, Mitt Romney and Wes Clark. (by the way, I’ve left out Evan Bayh because he’s like a stump on the stump and only mentioned the Vilsack poll because it was conducted in his home state).
In general though, I was attempting to point out that a) there are actual metrics for this kind of discussion that are too often ignored (Clinton or Gore’s formidable ability to raise money for example – and hey the primaries are only 14 months away so it’s not even premature anymore) and that b) anytime liberals claim that Al Gore is charismatic or condemn Hillary Clinton as unelectable they “sound” slightly disassociated from reality.
Post a Comment
<< Home