An Overview of the 2008 Presidential Campaigns - August 25, 2007

[radfringe]

I received the following from a friend of mine. He is a professor of Polical Science at a southern university. His specialty is PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGNS. There are less than 25 people in the United States specializing in this area.

An Overview of the 2008 Presidential Campaigns - August 25, 2007

At this point, we don’t know when the first primaries will take place. The two political parties agreed that February 5 would be the earliest date for primaries, except that Iowa and New Hampshire and Nevada and South Carolina would be allowed to hold their primaries or caucuses a few weeks earlier. So almost 20 states chose February 5. But then Florida broke the party rules and scheduled their primary a week earlier (1/29). Then Michigan decided to go even earlier (1/15). New Hampshire state law requires that its primary is at least a week before any other primary, so New Hampshire will now have to reschedule to January 8 or earlier. Iowa law requires that its caucus be held at least 8 days before New Hampshire but that would be New Year’s Eve so Iowa may move back to some time before Christmas, but the New Hampshire might decide to also move back to mid-December, which might encourage other states to do the same, which would push Iowa and New Hampshire back into November....

In past campaigns, there has been a fairly typical pattern in the primaries. There’s an early frontrunner and several other candidates. Usually, the frontrunner stumbles in the early primaries and one of the other candidates emerges as the main alternative to the frontrunner (for example, McCain in 2000). Iowa and New Hampshire usually winnow the field from 5-10 down to only 2 (or 3) viable candidates. In every campaign from 1992 on, the nominees in both parties have been effectively chosen on Super Tuesday. In 2008, with so many states (including New York, California and Georgia) holding primaries on one day, Super Tuesday (Feb. 5) is likely to be decisive.

In the Democratic Party, Senator Hillary Clinton is the clear frontrunner. An average of recent polls of Democrats show Clinton with 38%, Senator Barack Obama with 22%, former Senator John Edwards with 12%, and Governor Bill Richardson with 4%. These polls are the best early indicators of who’s likely to win the nomination. (But Howard Dean led the early polls in 2004.) Another good indicator is fundraising. Clinton and Obama have been breaking records in terms of fundraising (and doing better than any of the Republican candidates).

There are a lot of people (mostly Republicans) who intensely dislike Clinton. Many people believe she cannot win the general election. My sense is that Clinton would energize the Republican base but she would do well among a critical “swing group”: suburban women. Unlike most other candidates, Clinton has considerable experience in presidential campaigns. I see her as a candidate with substantial advantages and disadvantages.

Obama is sharp, articulate, charismatic and is seen as a fresh face, a new beginning. However, he has almost no campaign experience. Edwards has the experience of having run before in the primaries and as the Democratic vice-presidential nominee. His issue position, especially on poverty and health care, are well developed. He lags behind in the polls though he’s popular in Iowa; a win there would give him some momentum going into New Hampshire and South Carolina. Richardson is the most qualified candidate in either party (he’s served in Congress, as Secretary of Energy, as U.N. ambassador, and as Governor). Also, he’s Hispanic which could be very helpful in the general election if he’s the presidential or vice presidential nominee.

Among the Republicans, former NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani is currently the frontrunner. An average of recent polls of Democrats show Giuliani with 28%, former Senator Fred Thompson with 17%, former Governor Romney with 13%, and Senator John McCain with 12%. Giuliani and Romney are leading in terms of fundraising.

It’s surprising to me that Giuliani is doing so well among Republicans. He’s pro-choice, in favor of domestic partnerships, and in favor of gun control, none of which is popular among social conservatives. In addition, he’s been divorced twice. Many Republicans also have problems with Romney. Until recently, he too was pro-choice and favored gay rights. In addition, he’s a member of the Mormon church, which many fundamentalist Protestants regard as a “cult”. However, he’s popular in both Iowa and New Hampshire. John McCain is a pretty conservative senator but his public image is that of a moderate. Recently, his campaign has been doing poorly. Fred Thompson has not yet officially announced his candidacy (though he’s expected to do so soon). As a TV actor, his name and face are known. He’s socially conservative; his candidacy could be just what a lot of Republicans are looking for.

In terms of the general election, who the candidates are is not the most important factor. National conditions are usually more important. For example, when the economy is bad, the incumbent party usually loses (e.g., 1980, 1992). When the president is unpopular, even if he’s not running, his party usually loses. Right now, President Bush is very unpopular; less than 35% approve of his job performance. Less than 25% of Americans think the nation is heading in the right direction, and more than 60% oppose the war in Iraq. If the election were held today, I believe the Democrats would win easily, regardless of who the nominee was. But the general election is not for another 14 months. A lot can change in terms of the economy, the war, and a host of other factors. Stay tuned...

[Perry Logan]

1. He seems unaware of the last seven years of history.

He's a political scientist, and I'm not. But it strikes me as odd that the author--like virtually all election prognosticators--seems to assume that American voters will experience total amnesia about the last seven years--the unbroken series of megacatastrophes, screw-ups, and crimes which led to the humiliating defeat of the Republican Party in 2006.

Poll after poll shows Americans are completely grossed out by the Republican Party. Even the much-maligned Congressional Democrats are rated six points higher than the Congressional Republicans.

Yet predictions about 2008 almost always ignore this whopping big fact.

When they go to the polls in 2008, will American voters really forget who lost New Orleans, who destroyed the economy, who got us mired in Iraq, who made torture national policy, etc.? Will they forget they're going broke, that they can't afford to see a doctor, that thbeir bridges are collapsing, etc., etc., etc.? Will the 2008 election occur in a total vaccum?

Almost certainly not. That's why these speculations seem fatally flawed to me.

[BeyondGeography]

2. Obama is discarded with "he has almost no campaign experience"

whereas in point of fact he has stood for more elections (five; three for the Illinois Senate, a losing effort for the U.S. Congress and one for the U.S. Senate) than Clinton (2) and Edwards (2) combined.

[radfringe]

3. perry & beyond....

need to comment/clarify on two things

Perry: When they go to the polls in 2008, will American voters really forget....

yes. If american voters (in general) were informed, had memories, and paid attention we would have had bush in for a 2nd term, and people still wouldn't think Saddam had anything to do with 9-11

This election isn't going to be a "voting FOR someone" - it's going to be about voting AGAINST. It's going to be an anti-vote. Be it anti-bush (even though he's not running), anti-republican, anti-Clinton, anti-Democrat

We're still very much divided, and very few of us will switch our current flavor of kool-aid.


Beyond: Obama is discarded with "he has almost no campaign experience..
yes he has experience at the STATE level, not at the NATIONAL. His speech at the 2004 convention propelled him into the NATIONAL spotlight, but he hasn't been able to capitalize on it in a successful manner for a presidential campaign.

Looking at Obama, Clinton and Edwards:

Edwards ran in '04, he has experience with NATIONAL primary and NATIONAL election campaigns. He has a well organized campaign theme and platform.

Clinton was there with her husband in '02 and '96, very much involved with the campaigns, and I'm sure she has learned her lesson very well from the drubbing she took by the republics over her 'don't bake cookies" comment. For as long as she has been in politics, I'm sure her campaign themes/platforms have been in the works for several years.

Obama: took a bad stumble, got labeled as inexperienced and his inability to escape that label only reinforces the perception. Unfortunately, in subsequent debates he made a similar stumble and aquired the 'naive' label as well.

[BeyondGeography]

4. By that measure, Barbara Bush has experienced five national campaigns

should we be writing about her experience as well? Hillary's experience served her very well in New Hampshire last week when she made an unscripted remark conceding political advantage to the Republicans in the event of another terrorist attack.

Really, I find your professor friend's analysis to be rather thin. And your partisanship re. Obama prevents you from acknowledging the obvious; his well-run campaign is in better shape finacially than any other and has helped push Edwards to the brink of desperation.

[radfringe]

6. we would if barbara bush were running for president....

Obama's well financed campaign is based on his 2004 speech at the democratic national convention. I, for one, have been disppointed with him. Sorry to disagree with you, but he would be in a better position for a presidential run in 2012 or 2016.

If we are voting based on campaign contributions, then why bother discussing issues? Just collect the money, and whoever has the most wins.

Edwards isn't on the brink of desperation - he's letting Clinton and Obama beat up on each other. Why smack someone when someone else is doing it for you?

I like Obama, just think he needed/needs more seasoning at the national level.

as far as being partisan... :rolf: let me tell you a little secret.

My first presidential election was Carter-Ford. I registered as an INDEPENDENT, and I think I voted for nader. Not because I liked Nader, but because I didn't like FORD or CARTER.

Up until 2000, my vote for president always went to a 3rd party candidate because I didn't like any of the major party candidates. I didn't even vote for Dukakis and I live in Massachusetts until 1997.

In 2000, I wasn't thrilled with Gore, but bush scared the crap out of me, and given the polling numbers, and for what it was worth I voted for Gore.

I also voted for Kerry in 2004, not because I especially liked kerry, but because anything had to be better than bush

so in 2000 and 2004 my vote was not PRO-DEMOCRATIC it was ANTI-BUSH. In 2008, the way things stand right now, my vote will be ANTI-REPUBLICAN - and if the dems don't start showing some balls, it will also be ANTI-MAJOR PARTY

[radfringe]

5. in response to my friend's assessment

I sent him the following from a "person on the street" perspective: (sorry - it's long.....)



To quote Betty Davis: Fasten your seatbelts . . . it's gonna be a bumpy ride"

On the right we have the “I’m more holier than thou” and contestants from “To
Tell the Truth” all claiming to be Ronald Reagan. On the left we have a food fightbetween Clinton / Obama, with Edwards tossing some pudding just to keep
things interesting.

THE RIGHT:
Thompson is supposedly "officially" jumping into the mix around labor day. I
wouldn't be surprised if he shoots straight to the top of the pack with a bullet.

He's perceived as being "outside" of the pack, and with no bush/cheney
connections. HOWEVER - according to a couple of articles buried on back pages
- Thompson is pretty tight with the bush family, and it was hinted the bushes are backing him. If this connection receives more media attention, it could sink him in the long run, but I doubt if it will get much play.

A poll among republican/conservative voters a 2-3 weeks back showed they
favored “NONE OF THE ABOVE” when given a list of the official republican
candidates. Thompson “won” the poll when his name was added.

Rudy and Mitt will have a run for their money when Thompson officially
announces. We may see sniping/swiping between Rudy/Mitt and Thompson
similar to the Clinton/Obama/Edwards show.

Yes, lots can happen between now and then – but with the primaries being
moved, Thompson will have the shortest time between announcing and the
actual primary. This means, less time and less chance of a severe or fatal
stumble.

The Republicans are all singing the same tune, the lyrics may vary slightly, but the song is the same - Stay the course (in Iraq), Bomb Iran, Kill the Terrorists, Cut Taxes, Deport Immigrants, and Privatize Everything. This is all being chanted at a séance ritual where they are trying to raise the ghost of Reagan.

That being said – my money is on Thompson for the republican nomination.

THE LEFT:
The Democrats also have their own variation of a song - Out of Iraq, Talks with Iran, do something about terrorism, raise taxes on the rich, fix infrastructure, break oil habit, and mend foreign relations. Blame it on the media or not - the individual messages are lost in the snipes/swipes between Clinton and Obama, with Edwards poking them both just to keep things interesting.

I know Edwards is in 3rd place, but I think we will see him pass Obama in the
next 3-4 weeks. Obama's inexperience with campaigning at this level is showing, and he's lost the momentum.

Clinton: I said it back when she jumped into the Senatorial race, and I'll say it again. A run for president in 2008 would be too soon, 2012 or 2016 would have been a better year. There's still too much CLINTON hate among the middle-road conservatives, and sadly she's going to be carrying Bill's baggage.

There's also the dynasty thing being circulated - "bush-Clinton-bush-Clinton". If Clinton does get the nomination - look for this to be part of the republican's stump speeches. It's a good way to torpedo the "time for change" message the Democrats are trying to push. How can things change if they stay the same?

The "CHANGE" message is in deep trouble for all Democrats, not only in the
presidential campaigns, but also in the House/Senate races. Given the way the
Democrats are being perceived as caving-in to the bushies, the general
consensus among the Dem-supporters is that the only the name on the door has
changed.

OBAMA: As I previously mentioned, his inexperience with campaigning at this
level is showing and hurting him. Fair or not, he's being cast as inexperienced and naive. Although it's not being said - his "high-point" was his speech at the 2004 Democratic convention, and he's failed to meet expectations. He needs to refocus his campaign - put some distance between himself and the "inexperienced/naive" image and avoid the snipes/swipes fights with Hillary.

I doubt this will happen, and Obama will probably drop out after the 2nd round of primaries.

As far as the rest of the pack goes, the best they can hope for would be a shot at VP slot. Assuming the Dem nominee would chose from the dem candidates – I’d say Richardson or Biden are on the list. Richardson because he’s Hispanic and has foreign relation experience. Biden because he has foreign relation experience and his congressional connections – but Biden has his own baggage to overcome.

Kucinich? He has balls and spine, but it's a catch-22 situation. People won't support him because they think he's unelectable, and he's unelectable because people won't support him. At least he's trying to keep the rest honest.

In the last Dem debate there was some subtle “winks/nods” between Clinton and
Biden – might be nothing, but then again….. My money is on a Richardson pick
for VP.

THE LEAP-FROG PRIMARIES: In a nutshell – ARRRRGGGHHHH. Stupid,
stupid, stupid. Everyone wants to be first, if this continues we’ll be having the 2012 primaries the day after the 2008 primaries.

And what’s up the Dems shooting themselves in the foot over the Florida
delegates. Talk about snatching defeat from the jaws of victory mentality. I’m
sure the republicans are tickled pink about this development.

Just my 2-cents – either there should be 1 national primary day, or go to a
rotating group of primaries. Divide the states up by region (Northeast, South,
Midwest, West coast) or by some other category and have each group’s primary
2 weeks apart. Each group would be rotated to “first primary slot” in successive presidential primary years.

Example: In this year’s primary the Northeast group would be first. In the primaries for 2012 race, the South would be first, and the northeast would go to the bottom on the list. In 2016, the Midwest would be first, followed by west coast, then northeast and the south. This way no one
region/state would have a consistent advantage over another.

If dividing it up by region doesn’t make sense, then use electoral votes, as evenly divided as possible into 4 or 5 groups. This way states with smaller electoral votes would be grouped in with the larger electoral vote states.

As for me personally, I’m still firmly in the Too-Dang Early and Still-Too-Dang Early camp. That I don’t like any of the Republicans goes without saying. I’m not thrilled with any the Democratic candidates either. If the Pennsylvania primary were today, I’d be staring at the touch screen, and with a big sigh, probably vote for Kuchinich because he’s the only one showing some balls and backbone.

I know a 3rd party candidate doesn’t stand a chance of actually winning, but I
think there will be one which will make the damage Perot inflicted back in ’92 look like kindergarten. Based on a couple of articles – the 3rd party candidate may be Bloomberg (NYC-mayor) – if so, the damage will hit both major parties.

Once the parties have settled on a nominee - it's going to be an anti-campaign
season. Anti-bush/cheney, anti-republican VS anti-Clinton, anti-democrat. Votes will be cast AGAINST "X" as opposed to being FOR "X". Dirty politics will trump issues because DIRT WORKS.

One thing the Dem nominee can't afford to do is to take the HIGH ROAD and ignore seemingly stupid and insignificant attacks (i.e. Clinton's cleavage, Edwards hair, or even brand/style of underwear). Whoever the nominee is, will need to smack back, and smack back hard.

For instance let's say it's a Thompson-Edwards race, Thompson brings up Edwards haircut, Edwards needs to highlight that slamming him for a haircut has nothing to do with the issues, and then snark something like "I don't know why Fred Thompson wants to discuss my hair, maybe he's jealous that I do have hair. In all seriousness, his obsession with my hair makes me wonder if this is indicative of how he would run the white house, is his focus going to be the issues that matter, or will he try to regulate the barber business and put price caps on haircuts?"

If it's a Thompson-Clinton race, Clinton needs to get out front, refute the slams and demand an apology and a correction. She needs to say she bases her decisions on fact not fantasy, and when Thompson fails to apologize she can say something like "I'm disappointed that Fred Thompson won't apologize and admit a mistake....he sounds like someone else we all know and have experienced over the past 8 years...."