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)

The Iowa Caucuses

Despite an outpouring of support and enthusiasm from my six readers, I regret to announce that I have decide against forming an exploratory committee to run for President. As a member of the minority of Americans not running for the nomination, I have therefore turned my attention to the majority, and who will win my invaluable support. (My backing in 2004 was instrumental to bouying the Kucinich, and later, Dean campaigns during their slow failures.) I begin by looking at the eye of the needle, the Iowa Caucuses, though which the eventual winner must thread him/herself a little less than a year from now.

Here's what we know: the Iowa Caucuses are a terrible predictor of who will receive the nomination, but they're really good at determining who won't. Except in very rare cases, the candidate who receives the nomination has finished in the top two in Iowa. And those rare cases have very specific factors.

In1992, when Clinton finished third (fourth, if you consider the Iowans who voted "uncommitted"). But that was a weird year, because Iowa Senator Tom Harkin sucked all the wind out of the state by winning 76% of the vote--more than any candidate in history (including incumbents) and 28 points higher than the next closest non-incumbent received (Mondale in '84). A second exception came in '88, when eventual nominee Mike Dukakis was edged out by Midwesterners Paul Simon (Illinois) and Dick Gephardt (Missouri).

To win the Presidency, then, you must be in the top two unless you're running against a candidate from Iowa or a neighboring state. It's not an exact science, but it puts into context the candidates in '08, three of whom are heavy hitters and one of whom could become one if he enters the race (Gore). It's possible that Gore won't enter the race and that the big three (Clinton, Edwards, and Obama) will stay alive by virtue of a one, two, three finish--after all, Obama's from Illinois.

But winning Iowa isn't always the greatest thing. Of the last seven non-incumbent caucuses, the eventual nominee won only four. On the Republican side, where there were fewer non-incumbent elections eventual nominees went two of four.

However, Iowa's a better predictor of the mood of the country (if not its politics). The eventual Presidential winner won the popular vote in Iowa eight of nine times (including 2000, when it went for Gore). The only outlier is '88, when Iowans gave Dukakis a resounding ten-point win. That was also the only election in which Iowans were more than just a percent or two off the national vote (except in '84, when neighboring-stater Mondale got 6% more in Iowa, in a losing effort, than he got nationally).

So for the Democratic candidate looking to change the curtains in 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, these are some key things to remember: Iowans reflect the mood of the country in broad terms; being out of step with Iowans is a bad thing. Winning Iowa isn't any prescription for winning the country, but losing it big means not being around to win the nomination in the subsequent primaries (this year in Nevada, New Hampshire, and South Carolina).

_____________
This post has been updated. One of the interns caught a typo; I've beaten him for missing it before we went live.