2008 Speculation: The Democrats
By Drew McKissick Comments (13) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
The 2006 elections are fast approaching, but mid-term elections are rarely as interesting as presidential races, so let’s take a look at what’s on deck for 2008. For this column, we look at the Democrats.
Given that the nomination process consists of multi-candidate primaries and caucuses where it is only necessary to win a plurality of the vote in order to “win”, the candidate with the organized support of the radical, internet-centric “new left” will have a big head start over the competition.
If the radical left can gin up interest among its adherents for a US Senate primary in a state like Connecticut on behalf of a no-name guy like Ned Lamont, and deny the nomination to an incumbent Senator, then doing the same to help get a plurality of the vote in a few states early in the nomination process won’t be a stretch.
I think it’s fair to say that in 2004 Howard Dean only scratched the surface of what was possible in terms of marshalling such support and focusing it in targeted states via the internet. Now imagine the same scenario, but on behalf of a politician that has more established credentials, or who is already accepted by more segments of the party base as well as the national media.
Also, as Dean proved, they can be an invaluable source of money, no small fact when one considers the cost of being competitive in the rush of early primaries where it’s likely a majority of delegates will be chosen in the first six weeks or so. To say nothing of being said the have “momentum” by the press, or “Big Mo”, as George Bush, Sr. once referred to it.
Yes, Hillary has a lot of money and a lot of support, both in the Democrat party and in the press, but does that mean she will be the nominee? Especially when you consider that she’s extremely polarizing, with a pre-existing national image that gives moderate Democrats the willies, (no pun intended). And she also has problems with the Democrat base, specifically the “new left” variety that provided the muscle to beat Joe Lieberman in Connecticut. They don’t like her stance on the war in Iraq, or her overtures to moderate how she is perceived on some issues, such as abortion.
So how about the rest of the field? Al Gore’s a no-go. He’s seen as even more liberal than Hillary by the general public as well as a bit of a sore loser. John Kerry’s just a loser, and not well liked by the Democrat base (that used Dean as their vehicle against him), or the financial base (such as the Hollywood types) that feel their 2004 investment in him was wasted.
Then there’s former VP candidate and NC Senator John Edwards, who’s seen as somewhat of a moderate. He’s also a southerner with enough mainstream appeal that he may do better in the south in a general election. Ditto that for former Virginia Governor Mark Warner. Very similar are Indiana Senator Evan Bayh and Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack. These four will essentially be competing for the mantle of the “moderate who can win”.
There’s Joe Biden, the Democrats most prominent voice on foreign policy, but who loves the sound of his own voice a little too much, has a bad comb-over and keeps getting caught suggesting that the Democrats should write off the south – and then denies he suggested it.
Finally, there’s Russ Feingold, a real liberal’s liberal. He’s the anti-war guy, the reform guy, liked by big labor, the enviro-radicals and anti-capitalists. And unlike Howard Dean, he’s managed to win a general election in a state that doesn’t elect socialists.
So how do things shake out? I see a showdown looming between the new left and the hopeful moderates, which will ultimately have the effect of squeezing Hillary out of the race. (Memo to Harry Reid: your days leading Senate Dems may be numbered).
This presupposes that one of the moderates can raise enough money to be competitive but, granted that, the Democrats could have a real knock-down, drag-out fight for control of the party. And not just among competing personalities, but between competing visions.
Get out the pop-corn, this will be entertaining.
***
Drew McKissick is a Columbia, SC based political consultant. He maintains a blog at htt://www.conservativeoutpost.com
Just for kicks go to Google and type in Bill Richardson scandal and read some of the hits. I did it a few months ago and came away thinking, Richardson has been involved in same shady stuff, and New Mexico is crooked as hell.
Things like thinking he was drafted by MBL or how he likes to touch his employees. He's got a lot of weird baggage like that for somebody who hasn't been under the spotlight yet... doesn't seem like he could deal with a Presidential race.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson
The Democratic ticket will probably be either Hillary/Warner or Hillary/Edwards. I think it will be Warner because he could possibly turn Virginia blue while Edwards is a proven loser if Hillary is aiming to turn North Carolina blue.
The most dangerous ticket would be a Warner/Bayh ticket. Together they could turn two red states blue, but luckily that will likely not be the ticket that emerges from the Democratic primaries.
The GOP, on the other hand, needs to nail down its Midwestern support - especially Ohio and Iowa. I think that the ticket that would do this best is a pair of conservative rock stars from the midwest - and luckily we have them. U.S. Rep. Mike Pence (IN) - who is on par with Gingrich minus the personal baggage - running at the top of the ticket, and Ohio Secretary of State and gubenatorial candidate Kenneth Blackwell (OH) as the VP candidate. Together with the ticket's geographic appeal, Mike Pence's enormous personal appeal, and his ability to speak with intellectual gravity about conservative policy stands, I think that this ticket would deliver a knockout to a Clinton/Warner ticket. Additionally, with the increased level of African-American support that I expect the ticket would garner, the margin in red states should widen significantly as African-American voters already surrounded by a strong pro-GOP environment will be more likely to vote for the ticket once they see themselves reflected in the leadership's makeup.
I expect that Pence/Blackwell would:
1 - hold down Ohio, Missouri, and Iowa (even if Blackwell loses his gubenatorial bid)
2 - flip New Hampshire back to red, and
3 - stands a dangerous chance of turning Michigan (17 electoral votes), Wisconsin (10), and Minnesota (10) - three states that Bush narrowly lost - all red.
This would more than offset the possibility of losing Virginia's 13 electoral votes to Warner (although with Hillary running at the top of that ticket, I still have strong doubts about Warner's ability to flip Virginia.) The ability to hold New Mexico's 5 electoral votes, however, becomes a question mark.
The rest of the electoral map, in this scenario, should remain static. If it doesn't, I expect it would move the GOP's way as Hillary is seen as the overtly polarizing figure that she is and scares people into the warm embrace of Mike Pence. :-)
Since the topic is the Democratic primary, I think I should expand slightly on why I think Hillary will be the Democratic presidential nominee:
1. Money - Hillary will raise a ton of it; double if not triple the amount that everyone else will raise (possibly combined.)
2. Money - There will none left for anyone else
3. Name ID - she has it, the others don't
4. Name ID & Money - The ones without Name ID won't have the cash to build it because Hillary will have sucked it all dry.
5. Issues - the ones more likely to win the Democratic nomination won't be able to stake out positions that are significantly or substantively to the left of Hillary
6. Issues - the ones that are more electable in the general will be too far to the right to win the primary.
7. Issues - because they realize the realities of No. 5, such candidates are running to the left, elminating their competative advantage in the general - which erodes their ability to claim to be the more electable candidate
8. Issues - because of movement in position of "moderate" candidates moving left in No. 6, Hillary will look like the stable candidate, and that's an attribute the Democratic constituency will value after John Kerry got shallacked with the "flip-flopper" moniker in 2004
9. Democrats' Gender & Sexuality Constituencies - Emily's List feminists and the Gay & Lesbian community (the lesbians love their lesbians, and the gays love their divas) will line up behind Hillary with steadfast solidarity, leaving the rest of the field to pander to the party's remaining constituencies (and as noted, less money than Hillary will have to go court them.)
Why Hillary will chose Warner
1. Governors do well in national elections. Maybe she can ride HIS coattails on this one.
2. John Edwards has proven that he can't deliver North Carolina or any other southern state for that matter
3. Warner might be able to flip Virginia
4. Virginia has more electoral votes than Indiana (Bayh) or New Mexico (Richardson).
5. The next best choice would be Barack Obama. Dynamic and extremely popular, but is he ready? He won't deliver much to Hillary that she doesn't already have, really. Illinois is solidly blue. She's even from Illinois. He's black, and until Mike Pence makes a sneak attack by naming Kenneth Blackwell his running mate a week after Hillary announces hers, she won't know that she needs to shore up this constituency. :-) Warner still seems to have more political upswing than Obama.
6. Richardson - yes, he's Hispanic. But he doesn't even have a Hispanic surname. And does she really need a co-Clintonista on the ticket? Probably should be her third choice after Warner and Obama, but I don't think she'll have to dig that deep. I think she'll get her first choice in Warner.
Why Hillary won't win the general
1. Lingering Clinton Fatigue - despite what we've been told, only Democrats really long for the "good old days" of the Clinton Administration. As soon as things start getting dredged up about scandal and how Hill was at the center of all of it including questions about how "shocked" she really was that Bill really did "sleep with that woman," people will get sick - possibly
2. Because of all the reasons I detailed above that Pence/Blackwell is a rockstar ticket destined for great things. :-)
I accidentally neglected to complete my contention No. 1 under "Why Hillary Won't Win the General"
1. Lingering Clinton Fatigue - despite what we've been told, only Democrats really long for the "good old days" of the Clinton Administration. As soon as things start getting dredged up about scandal and how Hill was at the center of all of it including questions about how "shocked" she really was that Bill really did "sleep with that woman," people will get sick - possibly causing many who are not driven to Pence/Blackwell to at least stay home and not vote.
The specter of a repeat of the scandal-plagued Clinton Administration is not something that most of the electorate (moderate democrats, moderates, independents, liberal Republicans, and especially not conservatives) is clamoring for, I'm guessing.
Winning is a two-front battle:
A. Energize your base
B. Demoralize the opposition
You gotta make the opposition ineffective. Driving 'em bats**t crazy works, too: see the '04 election for further details. :)
I'm not as sanguine about the inability of Sen. Clinton to win: too much depends on the exact composition of Congress in 2007 and 2008...
Moe
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
Name the last POTUS that was elected from the House.
Dan Barr
I think Gore can do it. Sure he is far left, but that's what the base wants. Sure he's a sore loser, but you can't be enough of a sore loser for the base. I think it would be a mistake to count him out. He is the crazy leftist with the great resume. He could generate excitement this time around, if he sticks with his moonbat message and doesn't try to go respectable like he tried to do in 2000.
I think Hillary is dead or close to it. She'll probably try to run to the right of most (or all) of her competition in the primary. I don't think the left is going to settle for another "electable" candidate, much less an "electable" candidate that has a lot of personal baggage and is very unpopular with a large segment of the population. Even if she got past the primary, I don't see her winning in the general.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson
Here's how the Gore scenario would look: After Gore throws his hat in, what few DailyKos'ers that have jobs will quit them and join the rest in Iowa and New Hampshire. Something that will make the Dean'04/Lamont'06 primary efforts look like a school board race. These are people with zero acumen when it comes to winning big races, but when it comes to their party's primarys, they are pretty skilled at convincing people who are only slightly crazy to go down the moveon path.
After being nominated, however, I can't see Al Gore defeating a wet paper bag in the primary. In 2000 he was a succesor to a popular president, and was far more restrained then the digital brownshirt/he betraaaaayed us Al we know and love today. Especially in a climate without any of the "anybody but Bush" effect, I can't see anybody but prius-driving coastal elites completing the sentence "I should vote for Al Gore because....".
I think Warner's the guy. New Democrat, self-made millionaire, silly popular governor of a red state, kept his office blue after leaving, only had one term to screw things up and it happened to be during a boom so there really isn't anything on him.
Hillary isn't stupid, and if her polling doesn't show promising numbers I could see her not even running. If that's the case, she will endorse Richardson, Warner, Edwards, or Bayh and make the lucky recipient owe their political lives to her if/when they are elected. If she ends up becoming kingmaker AND Senate majority leader, that's almost as good as being president -- and much better than being the nominee and losing.
My prediction: Warner/Richardson or Edwards/Richardson, at least if Richardson can accept being VP.
I think that Hillary and McCain have a lot in common with respect to their parties nominations. On paper, they each have every advantage and with the exception of one group, everyone in the world wants to hand them their parties nomination. The problem they both have though is that the one group in question is their parties primary voters. I know a lot of democrats who are interested in politics and I can't ever recall even *one* of them being enthusiastic about the prospect of nominating Hillary. I think that in the end, they will be pragmatic and nominate Mark Warner who will be a formidable candidate.
-exits
The "progressives" love him because he was anti-Iraq all along and he can actually speak intelligently.
I doubt we'll have a Hillary/Feingold ticket - I don't think they'd go the Senator/Senator route after losing consecutive elections with it. (For the same reason I don't see Hillary/Obama or Hillary/Bayh, but Obama's race could trump that.)
Feingold would be interesting as a Presidential candidate. He doesn't come off as shrill like Dean or Clinton, nor sound like a buffoon a la Gore, nor sound condescending like Kerry, though he might be a pretty dry/boring speaker like Kerry. I don't agree with much of any of his views, but Feingold comes across as sounding like he's saying what he really believes. So he projects a sense of honesty (whether it's real or fake) moreso than most of the other top Democrats, who make your skin crawl when it's obvious their position du jour is based on today's polling data.
He is perhaps the only democrat that wouldn't make me explode with rage. Even in spite of his ridiculous position on North Korea.
International Affairs is just Political Science with an accent.