Iowa's influence. Something to behold. (All data from pollster.com.)

South Carolina (Rasmussen)
Obama 42%
Hillary 30%

National (USA Today/Gallup)
Obama 33%
Hillary 33%
Edwards 20%
(Pre-Iowa, it was mid-40s for Hillary to mid-20s for Obama)

New Hampshire, post-Iowa (6 polls)
Obama 37%
Hillary 29.2%
Edwards 18.6%

Rich Media and Party Brand

I pity the fools who sat through the agonizing four hour debate on Saturday night. I am one. There was almost nothing to learn, and surely a far better way to spend a Saturday night. However, two things did jump out.

1. Rich media.
In a revealing exchange, Charlie Gibson illustrated how the media is unknowingly biased. The candidates were talking about repealing the Bush tax cuts and whacking the rich.

CLINTON: Yes, but, Charlie, the tax cuts on the wealthiest of Americans; not the middle-class tax cuts. One of the problems with George Bush's tax policy has been the way he has tilted it for the wealthy and the well-connected.

GIBSON: If you take a family of two professors, here at Saint Anselm, they're going to be in the $200,000 category that you're talking about lifting the taxes on.

(LAUGHTER)

That laughter was at Charlie, for seriously over-estimating what a professor earned. Baffled, Charlie tried to dig his way out of it, but just had to move on as everyone in the audience and on stage laughed at him. Here's what I think happened. Gibson was trying to make the point that repealing the Bush tax cuts will hurt the middle class and pulled what he thought was a reasonable example of that out of the air. But the median income was $48k for a two-income family in 2006--a quarter of Gibson's guess. Gibson, who earns millions a year and lives Manhattan and socializes with other extremely rich people, doesn't have a clue what "middle class" is ($200k puts you in the 96th percentile).

It's no wonder the news does a bad job capturing what average Americans face economically. They are a species unseen to the media.

2. Party Brand
The other thing I couldn't help but notice in contrast was the state of the GOP and Dem brands. The Republicans fought like a sack-full of cats, visciously raking each other over the coals. The Dems, on the other hand, did snipe from time to time, but they all reiterated throughout the debate how they were all pretty much good on the issues and in agreement, and how any would offer a huge improvement over Republican rule. If you were undecided going in, wondering which party you should support, you would have recoiled in horror from the GOP.

It's no wonder that the two guys leading that race are both the rejects from the party establishment. Being a good party guy is a bad thing in '08 if you're a Republican.

Candidates' Net Worth: $385.2 million

You know Mitt Romney is the richest candidate running for president. But did you know that Hillary Clinton has a net worth of $34.9 million? Who says public service doesn't pay? Have a look at a CNN report out this week (apparently the story was started before Huckabee became a serious contender):

Democrats' Net Worth - $90.6 million
$54.4 million - John Edwards ($44m in cash and stock)
$34.9 million - Hillary Clinton ($30m in cash and bonds)
$1.3 million - Barack Obama ($250,000 in cash)

Republicans Net Worth - $294.6 million
$202 million - Mitt Romney ($19m in cash.
$52.2 million - Rudy Giuliani ($21m in cash and stock)
$40.4 million - John McCain ($2.1m in cash)

Clearly, only Obama is by any stretch a middle class candidate. And he may legitimately be called one. Most of his wealth comes from his $1.9m home. Since we now have something like $400k in real estate, thanks to a crazy housing market, I don't regard this as signs of blue blood. (We bought our first house in '99 with 3% down--or about $6,000, including closing costs--and everything since then has been appreciation. You didn't have to be a financial wizard to make money in the early '00s.) Obama's also in the hole $1.3 million, probably due to mortgages and student loans. All of that looks pretty familiar to the average American.

Remind me: why is Hillary so much the friend of the little guy? Why is Obama the candidate of the Democratic elite?

Causation, a Brief Tutorial

Last night's debate featured questions posted on YouTube from a representative sample of Republican voters. They were a motley crew who looked uneducated and unhinged--you know, the GOP base. So what does NRO think? CNN stacked the deck:

I was absolutely disgusted with what I saw tonight from CNN. Thousands of people submitted questions for this debate; yet, the questions they chose only served to reinforce the stereotype that the average Republican voter is a confederate-flag-waving, gun-toting, bible-brandishing conspiracy theorist! There were staggeringly few questions on National Security, and the few that were asked include some of the substanceless "gotcha" questions which were designed for no other purpose than to induce gaffes. What bothers me most is that CNN's embarassing performance was not out of malice; they genuinely believe that this is what Republicans are like and that these ridiculous questions are what Republican voters want to hear. A bad night for CNN and for the American media generally.

Let's see, the GOP has spent the past generation pandering to confederate-waving, gun-toting, Bible-branding conspiracy theorists for 30 years, but it's CNN's fault for selecting them to ask questions. Dammit, where are all the videos of post-docs asking sincere questions about the state of the economy? Oh right--they're Democrats.

Unity '08's Weird Survey

The forgotten Unity '08 movement, which sought to deliver us from this hell of polarized politics, released a poll they compiled of their 105,000 members (or, to put it in context, about a third the number of people who have given to Barack Obama). It's a group of disaffected "independents" who pine for a Mr. Smith kind of candidate. Since everyone hates Bush and the Dems haven't screwed up too badly, it turns out to be a bad year for this kind of movement. But that's another story. Anyway, they lumber forth, and the findings are worth a blog post, so here we go. For some reason, they sampled the returns randomly, rather than sorting and weighting or offering in toto. Dunno what it all means, but in the grist-for-the-mill department, a few thoughts.

They had respondents rate the major party candidates; they all clustered around the "fair" rating. On a 0-6 scale, Hillary scored the lowest, a 2.3; the rest of the leading candidates were clustered between 2.45 adn 2.52 (Giuliani, Romney, McCain, and Edwards), and Obama was about 2.9. To the extent anything can be said about this, it may be that partisanism, not ideology, is the dimension being measured. Among self-styled political agnostics, Obama comes up best. Food for thought when looking toward the general.

On a similar scale, the group was given seven statements about Iraq and asked to endorse or reject them. The highest-rated statement: "Iraq raises questions of future US military intervention."

There's more if you want it, but those are the salient points.

Oblique Signals

This week, Oregon lefties were dealt a bit of a blow in our effort to see the exit of Republican Senator Gordon Smith--regarded as one of the top five most vulnerable GOP incumbents. John Frohnmayer, a former member of the Bush Administration (National Endowment for the Arts), announced his independent candidacy with a call to impeach President Bush. This doubly sucks, because we not only have a chance to take the seat back, but both Steve Novick and Jeff Merkley, the Dem candidates, are solid lefties.

But as I think about it, there is something interesting in this phenomenon. Frohnmayer, who has lately lent his support more in the Democratic direction, is nevertheless one of those candidates who acts as a kind of barometer for the national mood. In the mid-90s, the political winds blew right, whether it was Clinton ending welfare or the rise of the poisonous Fox network or the general derision directed all things culturally liberal and urban. Dems were a joke, liberalism was dead, markets and Jeses were ascendant (remember the discussion that we lived in a post-nation world?).

Frohnmayer, as the independent, gives voice to the extra-party mood of the electorate. And what he says, loudly, is that the American polity is incompetent and corrupt. His argument will undoubtedly be that the Dems are no more trustworthy. But while that may screw the Dem this year, the message is clear: the era of GOP rule is done.

I have this debate with friends pretty regularly, who argue that since Dubya was the worst candidate in history--theoretically or in reality--ipso facto, the GOP will win in '08 when the same electorate who voted W will have a better Republican on the ballot. If the ascendancy of the GOP brand were still so strong, however, former Bush administration officials wouldn't be running against the GOP in 2008.

The Fundamental Question

Bush may have unwittingly outlined the Democratic strategy for 2008:

But he said he saw his unpopularity as a natural result of his decision to pursue a strategy in which he believed. “I made a decision to lead,” he said, “One, it makes you unpopular; two, it makes people accuse you of unilateral arrogance, and that may be true. But the fundamental question is, is the world better off as a result of your leadership?”

Let's see, how many incumbent GOP lawmakers agreed with his unilateral arrogance? I believe I'd be asking them all whether this fundamental question is the one they're running on. Or away from.

Giuliani for Obama

That's Caroline, Rudy's daughter. Dad must be so proud to have raised an open-minded daughter:

There's one vote that Rudy Giuliani definitely can't count on in his 2008 presidential bid: his own daughter's. According to the 17-year-old Caroline Giuliani's Facebook profile, she's supporting Barack Obama.

Or maybe not:

It's not news that Rudy and his two children, Caroline and her 21-year-old brother Andrew, have a rocky relationship. Caroline and Andrew are the children of Donna Hanover, Rudy's second wife. In March, Andrew, who is a junior at Duke, told the New York Times that he and his father had been estranged for some time, and he has spoken candidly about his objections to Giuliani's marriage to Judith Nathan. And after the wedding, the Times reported, Giuliani also stopped attending Caroline's high-school events. Though he went to her high-school graduation, he left without speaking to her and did not join in the post-graduation family celebration, according to the New York Daily News.

Why do Republicans reliable raise kids who hate them? Hmmm....

On the GOP Weakness

I get in regular debates with panicked friends who think that Republicans will hold the White House next year. The accelerant for the fear is an unproveable, which leaves us treading water until the election: the American electorate, as evidenced by the '04 results, are stupid and terrified, and so will ultimately always succumb to the most autocratic Daddy in the Daddy party. Thus do they most fear Rudy.

Early signs seemed to bear the fear out; Rudy was holding tough in the polls and had sizeable advantages in Dixie, where one would expect he would be most weak. (Tellingly, in New York, he gets killed by Hillary.) Nevermind that voters had used abortion and gays to guide them for 20 years, now that their man was for the wrong one and against the right one, they'd line up behind him. The smell of polished leather is a powerful political aphrodesiac.

But the theory appears to be breaking apart. Rudy, who began the year at 35-40% in the polls, has slipped to 25%. And now that Fred Thompson is in the race, it's a dead heat. Early primaries? Giuliani's numbers are dropping like a stone and he is trailing in Iowa (Romney leads), New Hampshire (Romney and McCain lead) and South Carolina (Thompson leads). He's leading only in Florida. But trend lines across the board are down for him.

It looks like Republicans are going to trade Rudy in for Fred Thompson, hoping that if they photoshop in some hair and squint really hard, they can make him look like Reagan. But even yellow silk ties and shoulder pads aren't going to bring the 80s back. This is the desperation of a fading party--looking for a candidate to save them rather than falling back on the machine. In 2000, they were strong enough to run a half-wit who literally didn't know who the Indian PM was. They didn't have to sink all their hopes in a bald man from an aging TV show.

Finally, the thing that is most convincing is that in head to heads, Obama and Hillary regularly are in the margin of error of GOP candidates, and often beat them. Think about that. Obama, who's polling in the low twenties among Dems, beats the Republicans. Last week's LA Times poll had Obama beating McCain by 12%, Romney by 16%, and Giuliani by five. If you're a Republican, that's a big problem.

Lots can happen, but I'm no longer buying the hype: the GOP is going to have to pull off a miracle to win in '08.

Rural Voters Stray the GOP

I just posted this at BlueOregon, and at the same time, we had another guest post on the same topic. So I deleted it. An item for the Zombie Blog, I imagined ...

For those of us who read polls like tea leaves, hoping to discern a pattern that will give us insight into what Americans will do in the next election, the recent Rural America poll sponsored by NPR was a shocker. Generally, reading polls is like reading tea leaves--and about as accurate. You may be able to perceive opinion trends, but how these correlate to what people do in the election booth, that's an iffier prospect. But this latest poll is dramatically at odds with conventional wisdom that it looks like it may actually mean something.

Forty-six percent of the survey respondents indicated they'd vote for an un-named Democratic candidate for president if the election were held today; 43 percent favored a Republican.... The numbers reflect a plunge in Republican support among rural voters. Exit polls from the 2000 presidential election had Republican George Bush beating Democrat Al Gore by 22 per cent in rural areas. In 2004, the actual vote tally showed President Bush outpolling his Democratic challenger, Sen. John Kerry, by 19 percent among rural voters.

NPR credits the war in Iraq as the main cause for the shift, and it's clearly a factor; they note that "three-fourths of those surveyed know someone who is serving or has served in the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan." But digging a little deeper, I notice a trend that should be a lot more alarming for Republicans. When compared with average Americans, rural voters feel far less prosperous and see themselves as having far worse prospects in the future.

Pollsters asked respondents to describe whether certain words applied to rural America and then whether it applied to the country as a whole. Seventy percent believed "prosperous" applied to the country, but only 42% thought it applied to rural America. Similarly, 64% thought "increasing opportunity" applied to the country, but only 39% to rural America.

More predictably, they believed rural America was more strongly oriented toward "traditional values" (80%-56%) and "strong family values" (85%-62%) than the country as a whole. These are the elements the GOP has highlighted for decades, but it apparently they are no longer enough to keep rural voters reliably loyal.

There are three statewide races in '08 (attorney general, secretary of state, treasurer), in addition to Gordon Smith's Senate seat. Conventional wisdom holds that it's the swing districts in Clackamas and Washington County where the real race is. But this assumes that Republicans have the rural districts sewn up. Perhaps that assumption isn't accurate.

Historically, Democrats did a lot better in rural America exactly because they focused on economic fairness issues. We don't know whether these results would be mirrored in Oregon. (Western politics tend not to line up like rural/urban politics of the South and NE.) And yet, the economic concerns are surely as dire in rural Oregon. So, could we be at one of those historic moments when traditional political coalitions collapse and regroup? Maybe the polls are telling us something. It's definitely worth keeping an eye on in 2008.

Hagel Out

Chuck Hagel, won't be running for president. He made the unlikely statement this morning, underscoring why I was worried about his candidacy: everyone assumed he was announcing his candidacy, because no one calls a press conference to announce that there's nothing to announce. Hagel is the true maverick in the party, and that's why he was the one candidate who was dangerous to Dems. But it's a good-news, bad-news thing; his straight-talk candidacy would have given the GOP a scant margin of credibility back, but it would have also made things more interesting. Now it's back to the old-man, cross-dressing, Mormon circus. Ah well.

Interesting Polling by Region

My ride is about to leave, so I'll have to update this later, but Time has an interesting poll out that details candidate strength by region. Hillary enjoys a big lead in the Northeast and South, but is tied or trailing Obama in the West and Midwest. Who'd a' thunk Hillary would be the candidate to bring North and South back together again.

Obama's Polling Strength

A Zogby poll is making the rounds that shows Obama beating all-comers in the general election:

Obama/Giuliani - 46%/40%
Obama/McCain - 44%/40%
Obama/Romney - 51%/29%

No other Dem beats Giuliani or McCain, though everyone beats Romney. The poll turns out to be an outlier, but the trend is similar. In other polls, Obama does better against the three major GOP candidates than do Hillary or Edwards, and is in a tie with McCain. Part of this is that Giuliani and Obama, the two strongest candidates in each party, are the least well-known. Both will see their negatives jump as the country hears more about them. But this is far worse for Giuliani, whose negatives are substantial.

Too early to mean anything, but interesting to see.

John McCain is Old

The Gallup poll making the rounds has highlighted the resistance Americans have to Mormons (24% said they wouldn't vote for one). But even more unelectable are men thrice-married (30% oppose) or 72 years old (42% oppose), as are Rudy Giuliani and John McCain, respectively. In fact, only gays and athiests are more objectionable than old men.

Of course, those are generic numbers, and people are probably more positive about McCain than they are worried about his age. Still, it demonstrates the problem he confronts. Below is a handy Table of the Objectionable and the corresponding candidate who fits the slot.

Category________No Worries___Worries___Candidate
Catholic____________95%________4% _______NA
Black_______________94%________5% _______Obama
Woman______________ 88%________11% ______Hillary
Hispanic___________ 87%________12% ______Richardson
Mormon_____________ 72%________24% ______Romney
Married 3x_________ 67%________30% ______Giuliani
72 years old_______ 57%________42% ______McCain

I also wonder whether people are more likely to tell the truth about their worries about age (no social stigma) than race (a big one). In any case, interesting.

The Latter-Day Saint

I lived for thirty-odd painful months in Salt Lake City, from November of my sophomore year until I came to Oregon to go to college. I roared at the oppressive, invasive culture, which is no place for a libertine non-Mormon. In those dark days (the 80s) and before, liquor laws prevented you from buying anything stronger than a 3.2% beer in a bar. You had to take your own bottle of wine to a restaurant and then pay an "uncorking fee" to drink it (a law intended to mark and punish non-believers). You even had to have membership at coffeeshops to get a cup of thin java. I actually engaged the religion a little more thoughtfully many years later, when
I returned and shot a documentary about the "Mormon Olympics."

I mention all of this because, despite his announcement in the very normal, very blue state of Michigan, Mitt Romney's bid to be president is going to raise the specter of his religion. It is strange, and its expression within the culture is strange, and unlike Joe Lieberman's Judaism, that's going to be a problem for Mitt--more so than Hillary's gender or Barack's skin color.

As a political bloc, Mormons have a lot in common with Evangelicals--they're socially conservative, agressively pro-market, family-oriented, and wear a lot sweatshirts and jeans. But this could be said of any fundamentalist faith, from Hinduism to Islam. Oregon's Senator Gordon Smith is mormon, as are Utah's elected officials. Utahns are reliable GOP votes, and when the issue is gay rights or abortion, Mormons and Christians stand shoulder to shoulder.

Electing a president is another matter. Chris Cillizza does a good job of breaking down the barriers of a general audience:

Digging slight deeper into the Gallup numbers, more skepticism becomes apparent. Of those 66 percent of Republicans who said they would cast a vote for a qualified Mormon, 54 percent said they would be "completely comfortable" with that decision while 12 percent expressed "some reservations" with that choice.

Combine those two questions and here's what you get: 54 percent of Republicans in the Gallup poll would vote for a qualified Mormon without a second thought; 42 percent would either not vote for a Mormon or would do so with some level of doubt.

Worse, a lot of those 54% are answering the question in the dark. When CBS asked people what they knew about the religion, only 10% knew a great deal, while 57% knew nothing at all. And only 25% had a favorable impression of it (second worse to Islam). For non-believers, the religion is pretty bizarre--so bizarre that it's mainly disguised behind a tapestry of benign Biblical beliefs. The facts--which surely will emerge--are less benign. (Below, I'll include a largely accurate, but enormously irreverant South Park that details how Joseph Smith founded the religion).

They'll learn about the strange cultural elements of the faith--men as the absolute head of the family, basements full of canned peaches for judgment day, the sphere of heaven being based on the number of kids families produce (!), the secretive weddings that happen privately in Mormon temples, the funny underwear Mormons wear--the list is long.

Mormonism's history, famous for polygamy, less so for its overt racism, poses difficult problems. (The faith believes that the Native Americans are a lost tribe of Israel who "had dwindled in unbelief they became a dark, and loathsome, and a filthy people, full of idleness and all manner of abominations." Utah Mormons actively tried to adopt Native American children to bring them into the light. It wasn't until 1978 that Mormons allowed blacks ordination. And so on.)

Ironically, it will probably be Romney's own party who launches the viscious attacks I anticipate. Because, while Evangelicals are happy to join with Mormons as a voting bloc, they seem less willing to elect them president. All of this dirty laundry is going to come out, and I suspect many of the fringe leaders will attack Romney. More importantly, he will lose a sizeable percentage of Evangelical base voters, and the ones he keeps won't be the kinds of voters who put Dubya on their shoulders in 2000 and 2004. Romney's campaign will be a non-starter, and I'm willing to go so far as to predict* he'll withdraw before Super Tuesday next spring.

Okay, enough of the analysis, here's the entertainment portion of our post:

_______________
*Record, including sports predictions, through 2007: 9.2% accuracy. A word to the wise.

Dangerous Dark Horse: Chuck Hagel

"I believe firmly in Ronald Reagan's 11th Commandment: 'Thou shall not speak ill of a fellow Republican.' But it's very hard sometimes to adhere to that where Chuck Hagel is involved."
_______- Dick Cheney, January 2007

Yesterday I argued that the GOP was dead in the water in 2008. I should have included an asterisk for Chuck Hagel. He's not on anyone's radar now, but he has the most upside and almost zero downside (we're talking Republican politics here).

Let's start with his resume: a decorated Vietnam vet, corporate star, maverick senator. He's often compared to John McCain, one of his best friends in the Senate. His politics are old-school GOP--pro gun and anti-tax. He's a hawk and would expand the military and anti-terror spending. He'd defund the arts and drill for oil in ANWR. He's against abortion. On the other hand, he's not a radical--he'd also increase funding for alternative fuels, expand services to the poor, increase funding for health care, and get rid of the trade embargo on Cuba (among other things).

But his biggest strength is that he has never been a fan of Bush, was an early critic of Rumsfeld, and was the first and most outspoken Republican to oppose the White House on the way it's conducting the war. Unlike McCain, whose straight talk is reserved for moments when it's not controversial, Hagel has taken stands.

Of all the candidates, he's the only one who has the chance of reuniting the core constituents of the GOP coalition: hawks, fiscal conservatives, Evangelicals, and libertarians. Of the candidates who appeal to cultural conservatives, he is the only one who won't wig out the rest of the country.

So far, he hasn't said he's running. Let's hope he doesn't.

The Republicans in 2008

As it stands now, John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, Newt Gingrich, or Mitt Romney are going to be the GOP candidate in 2008. That's very good for the Dems and very bad for the GOP. Candidate by candidate analysis in a minute, but first, let's set the stage.

Republicans enter the campaign with a president with a 30% approval rating. They have held the presidency 28 of the last 40 years, and have won seven of the last ten elections. They have cobbled together a coalition of disparate parts--fiscal conservatives, libertarians, evangelicals, and hawks--and dictated government policy since 1980. They have managed to implement a numbero their major reforms, from tax cuts to invasions, and have very little else to offer voters and keep the coalition together. With the collapse of Iraq, the coalition shattered, and the only way to beat the Dems in '08 is to somehow reconstitute that coalition. Each one of the major GOP candidates thinks he knows how to do it, but the odds are extremely long: the GOP has spent a generation building a vicious, aggressive political machine, and now it's turning on itself

John McCain
After his defeat in 2000, McCain has tried to add Evangelical chops to his image of a principled moderate. He has waffled about gay marriage, paid fealty to Jerry Falwell and James Dobson, and for his trouble, remains distinctly distasteful to the Christian right. His jump to the right has eroded his "straight talk" cred. Equally as bad, he has kowtowed for Bush and is strongly associated as a supporter of the war. Finally, he has long argued for a troop escalation, and although Bush's "surge" didn't meet the numbers McCain has said were needed, he'll go down with any failures the surge results in. One further barrier, and a rather serious one, is McCain's age: he'll be 72 at the time of the election--and would be the oldest president elected (Reagan was 69).

In the primaries, McCain will be savaged by the Evangelical right and caricatured as a Bush stooge. His own base will be attracted by Giuliani and is less supportive of the "straight talker" in any case. McCain is in serious trouble.

Rudy Giuliani
Giuliani is the other "straight talker" in the election, and he will find a base of support among the old school New England GOP--those who don't care about social issues. Giuliani clearly hopes the glamour of his 9/11 moment will carry Evangelicals along, but there are a couple problems. His New York background (failed marriages, infidelity, living with gay men) will be too distasteful for a lot of Dixie voters who would have trouble voting for anyone named "Giuliani" in any case; add these infractions, and he'll get killed in the primaries. It's also not clear that being a stand-up mensch during 9/11 will translate as adequate experience. He has had no national political experience. I suspect Rudy would make a decent foe for a Democrat in the general--particularly if it were a novice like Obama or Edwards--but he'll never get that far. The social conservatives will bury him in the primaries.

Mitt Romney
Two years ago, Romney wouldn't have thrilled Evangelicals--he's good on social issues, but his Mormonism would have been a problem. (In private, Christians would admit that he's headed the same place as godless Taxachussets liberals.) But the landscape has changed, and he may be the best of a bad lot. For me, the x-factor is whether Evangelicals are going to stay politically active. They'll vote in 2008, but with the failures of Bush to implement bedrock goals (abolishing abortion and gay marriage) and the loss of Congress, this is the most enervated faction of the GOP coalition. That's bad news for the GOP in general: they were also the most energetic political activists. Can Mitt rally them for one more campaign? My guess is no. In his early Massachussets campaigns, he was notably liberal with regard to social issues. That's going to be a major problem down the road. He also doesn't have a great deal of foreign policy credibility. He will be looking for some of the fiscal conservative vote and hoping to get the majority of the Evangelical vote. It probably won't be enough in the primaries, but, if it is, it definitely won't be enough to defeat the Dem.

Newt Gingrich
I have a hard time thinking Newt will actually throw his hat in the ring, but it would be entertaining if he did. Gingrich now believes his own hagiography: he was a principled conservative and clear-eyed intellectual who used reason to spark a populist revolt against corruption. Now he sees himself mounting the white horse to sanitize his own party. What he and his supporters seem to forget is that he was a nasty man whose populism never extended beyond his home district, and that he was the intial cause of the very corruption he now claims to want to address (he was an autocrat and a notorious pork barreler). In the primaries, he would mainly polarize the South against the other Northern and Western candidates, inject a flood of bile into the race, and remind moderates and independents why they want Dems to have a shot. He doesn't have any chance of winning in the primaries, and if he enters, he could seriously damage the campaign of the man who ultimately defeats him.

I don't know that this is a widely-shared view among Democrats and liberals, but the GOP don't really have much of a shot in 2008. They have to hope for a very weak candidate to emerge from the Democratic primaries and then pray for scandal. Anything else, and it's hard to imagine a scenario in which the White House stays in Republican control.

Assessing the Candidates: Two Minors of Note

As shocking as it is to think, it's nearly too late for minor candidates to jump in and hope to build the kind of momentum it takes to unseat the Hillary juggernaut. The field is so crowded at the top that it has claimed a few notables who might have made noise--Mark Warner, Russ Feingold, John Kerry, Evan Bayh. That leaves among the contenders a few no-chancers (Al Sharpton, Mike Gravel, Tom Vilsack, Chris Dodd, Joe Biden and, sad to say, Dennis Kucinich) and two who might be legit dark horses: Bill Richardson, who has formed an exploratory committee, and Wes Clark, who has not.

Neither one can run a traditional campaign. They must go viral, mount a charge like Dean did, and hope they can get enough press to vault them into serious contention.* Even then, the odds are very long. However, even without winning, they might be able to affect the course of things.

Bill Richardson
The resume of Bill Richardson will surprise folks mostly unfamiliar with the New Mexico governor. He served for 15 years in Congress before being tapped by Clinton as Secretary of Energy. He was later appointed as Ambassador to the UN, where his record earned him nominations for the Nobel Peace Prize. But it is his record as governor that gives him the most credibility. He managed to impress rural and urban voters by balancing the budget and targeting poor citizens with tax cuts. He cruised to a second term victory last year with 69% of the vote.

As a candidate, Richardson is the only major declared candidate with executive experience. He can lay claim to the Clinton school of economics by what he did in NM, while the three Senators spar over dubious votes they were forced to cast as members of the minority. But he doesn't give anything away in terms of foreign policy experience--a rare combo in a candidate.

Of course, the big thing is his background: his mother was Mexican, and Richardson is making the bid to become the first Latino president. This would add an interesting political element to the campaign in any year, but given the furor over immigration, his candidacy has extra import. Furthermore, as a Western-states candidate, he can subvert the usual New England/Dixie Nascar/Elite Liberal dichotomy into which the presidential race inevitably devolves. I don't think he'll emerge as a major candidate, but if he plays his cards right, a Veep nod could come.

Wes Clark
First things first, Wes Clark is probably not running. Despite his resume and the impressive supporters who came forward in 2004, Clark bombed in the primaries. With even stiffer competition in '08, I can't imagine a smart guy like Clark thinks he's got a shot. On the other hand, he could run purely as a service to Dems as the credible war liberal.

Dems have still not found their voice following the Iraq debacle. Obama has been a consistent anti-war politician, but he's not yet perfectly comfortable talking foreign policy. Edwards would rather avoid the subject altogether. Hillary's Thatcherite grit isn't a foreign policy so much as a PR strategy for the first serious female contender. Foreign policy isn't an either/or prospect, and the most credible candidates know this. But former generals, unlike young Senators, don't sound wishy-washy when they talk nuance. A military candidate could be a huge boon to the Dems as they cast around for direction. He can't win, but he can play an important role.

Clark also makes an attractive Veep candidate for a strong enough top-halfer on the ticket (ie, not Edwards).

_____________
*To get a sense of how far back the minor candidates are in terms press coverage, if you do name searches on "Bill Richardson," you get 8300. Wes Clark gets a mere 1100 hits. Hillary gets 23,000, and Obama 20,000.

Assessing the Candidates: Edwards and Gore

Moving on, here are a few thoughts on the other big two, Al Gore and John Edwards.

John Edwards

Polls. Percent of electorate who have heard of this candidate - 85%. Favorable - 62%. Definitely support this candidate - 15%.

Primaries. If California doesn't jump in before Super Tuesday, Edwards has been dealt the best hand in the primaries. He finished second there in 2004, and his "two Americas" position strikes a strong chord with prairie populists. He currently leads all candidates there, including locals Barack Obama and Tom Vilsack. He'll get killed in New Hampshire, but should win South Carolina. That leaves Nevada, itself a fairly populist state. If, going into Super Tuesday, he has won two states and finished second in a third, he'll fare strongly in the south and probably in Utah and Oklahoma. Edwards is currently the three man nationally, but a strong showing in the early primaries would elevate him--possibly to the nomination. If Cali jumps in, however, he'll get killed.

Strengths. Edwards' strength is his populist message. Obama's easygoing manner give him the patina of populism, but Edwards has been peddling "two Americas" for four years. If the election turns on the economy, Edwards is in a good position. He's also gotten a fair amount of credit for his transparency and honesty--witness his nuanced answer to Russert about gay marriage. He could be strong with swing voters because of his Southern, religious, family-values background.

Weaknesses. Unfortunately for Edwards, Obama has joined the race. Obama is Edwards measure on family values and religion and can talk populism. Edwards also seems insubstantial in a way Obama doesn't. Edwards is uncomfortable talking about foreign policy, and it clearly doesn't excite him. This is one of the biggest problems he has, because Hillary's going to be hammering foreign policy.

Blogger/grassroots Love. Edwards has a reserve in the bank from 2004, and could win bloggers' hearts along with grassroots bread-and-butter Dems; however, he's going to have to jump Obama for their love. Call it a five, with room to grow.


Al Gore

Polls. Percent of electorate who have heard of this candidate - 97%. Favorable - 54%. Definitely support this candidate - 17%.

Primaries. It's a little hard to know how Gore would fare in the primaries. As his numbers show, he's off the radar right now. Having been in the wilderness for eight years has left him a shadowy figure for most people, though those, like me who know what he's been up to are amazed by his work. The question is, if he jumped into the race, would he be "Inconvenient Truth" Al or Al 2000? My assumption is that he is done running for the wrong reasons, and he'd be willing to risk losing on his own merits this time around. Based on that assumption, the primaries look very good.

He registered the second-highest percentage ever in Iowa in 2000, just a few points less than native son Tom Harkin. Hillary would still do well in New Hampshire, but his long-held position on Yucca Mountain would make him a fave in Nevada, and the Southern states would no longer be a grant to Edwards. Add in that he's the only candidate who can credibly compete in Hollywood (he may be an Oscar winner by the end of the month), and he poses the most serious challenge to Hillary.

Strengths. Gore is mostly upside. He has the most foreign policy cred and can outmuscle Hillary while endearing himself to the antiwar left. He is leading the charge on global warming, which could be a major issue by next year. He has the same connections Hillary does in fundraising, and could raise buckets of money in a short time. He is also, I believe, the only candidate besides Obama who can truly inspire. I say this because I was dead set against him in 2000, but I've become inspired by him since.

Weaknesses. Gore's main weakness is his wooden persona and wonky nature--on the podium he rarely scintilates. But everyone knows this already. Would people be willing to give him another shot remains the final question.

Blogger/grassroots Love. Gore inspires more love than Obama. He would have a ferocious grassroots effort. There's still some room to grow, so I'll call it an 8.

______________
Sources: Time's Election Guide, Pollster.com, SurveyUSA (NH results), Strategic Vision (Iowa results)

Assessing the Candidates: Clinton and Obama

The race for President is actually more pressing than it seems, particularly on the Dem side. Hillary Clinton has all the money and shocking name recognition; any candidate who hopes to knock her off her game has got to demonstrate a serious campaign by mid-year in terms of polling numbers and money raised, or they will see all support vanish. By July, we'll have three or four serious contenders and a bunch of pretenders. Right now, those folks look to be Obama, Edwards, Clinton, and possibly Gore. (Gore is the only candidate who can bide his time and enter late.) Here's how things look now.

Hillary Clinton

Polls. Percent of electorate who have heard of this candidate - 98%. Favorable - 58%. Definitely support this candidate - 28%.

Primaries. The primaries don't line up all that well for Hillary, and this could be a problem. In a recent poll in Iowa, she was trailing Obama and Edwards, as well as Iowa governor Tom Vilsack. Nevada's next, and I haven't seen any polling there. However, she does have a serious lead in New Hampshire (without Gore in the poll). If Edwards is still alive by South Carolina, Hillary will potentially be just 2 for 4 heading into Super Tuesday, with ten states. These also aren't a fantastic distribution: Alabama, Arkansas, Missouri, and North Carolina are all likely to go to Gore, Obama, or Edwards. She will likely win in Delaware and New Jersey. That leaves a strange mix with Arizona, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Utah left up for grabs. The X factor is California, which is considering jumping in early. Hillary has the money and the operation to win in Cali, which could be the game-changer.

Strengths. Hillary will alienate a lot of people the average Dem should easily carry (like me), but she'll win over a number of women who would not otherwise vote for a Democrat. She's positioned herself as tough in foreign policy, and although her vote for the war will hurt her with the base, being a woman may innoculate her against the worst Cleland-ing by the GOP. She will also have all the money she needs. Times two.

Weaknesses. Hillary may win the nomination, but she will never inspire the nation or capture anyone's attention. She is the most highly polished politician since ... well, since Bill. She is vulnerable to an optimistic populist in the Kennedy mode. All three of her serious contenders are trying to play that role, and they will inspire some factions. If any of them catch fire, Hillary could get knocked out early.

Blogger/grassroots Love. On a scale of 1 to 10, where one is Bush and ten is Dean, give Hillary a four.

Barack Obama

Polls. Percent of electorate who have heard of this candidate - 78%. Favorable - 70%. Definitely support this candidate - 22%.

Primaries. Obama is such a wild card, it's hard to know how he'll do in the primaries. One thing's for sure--he could win Iowa. He's already second there, and he could capture the hearts of the Iowans, who have often given their delegates to a fringe candidate. But after that, who's to say? Obama's not enough on anyone's radar right now to measure. His strategy is to create a large national upswell and hope it carries him through the dodgy bets in New Hampshire and South Carolina and that a few maverick states like Arizona and New Mexico go for his message.

Strengths. Obama's all about optimism, honesty, and down-home familiarity. People like him because they all feel he's like them, but a little smarter and more noble. Americans hate politics, but from time to time, they fall in love with a politician who seems to subvert politics for the good of the country. If politics is about to make a shift toward transparency and away from spin and big money, Obama could really make a move on Hillary.

Weaknesses. Experience, both in office and on the trail. Does he have the foreign policy chops to stand up to Giuliani or McCain--never mind Hillary? He's running an insurgent candidacy like Ross Perot, but will he flame out like Perot did? The next five months are critical for Obama. If he hasn't emerged as the central serious Hillary foe, he may never make it.

Blogger/grassroots Love. A very cautious 7--though that could go sharply in either direction once he rises in national prominence. A better-than-even shot of being the Dean of 2008, both in terms of money and attention.

Tomorrow: Edwards and Gore.

______________
Sources: Time's Election Guide, Pollster.com, SurveyUSA (NH results), Strategic Vision (Iowa results)