As many of you know, my firm (Greg Smith & Associates) is a political polling and conulting firm of national repute. Many of us here on Gather have done bits and pieces of the emerging 2008 picture, but it seems to this Gatherite that we thus far lack a comprehensive, analytical, and (hopefully!) objective outlook at the '08 Presidential picture.
I'm dividing this examination into two parts, due to illness and fatigue. Today, we'll look at the Democrats. I will examine the Republican picture on Wednesday or so.
At this point, the Democratic piture for 2008 consists of the following "front-runners" (either already announced or likely to announce), in no particular order
1) Hillary Clinton
2) Barack Obama
3) John Edwards
4) Al Gore
(The corresponding list for the Republican side of the aisle is as follows:
1) John McCain
2) Rudy Giuliani
3) Mitt Romney)
Hillary Clinton remains and is likely to continue to be very highly polarizing in support, even among Democratic presidential caucus participants/voters. Barack Obama has a great deal of star appeal right now, but is likely to never again be as popular as he is right now. (Interestingly, that's why some such as George Will say he should run in 2008). John Edwards, in my opinion, could easily be the candidate who best exploits Clinton's and Obama's electoral weaknesses. However, should he choose to get in the race, I predict that Al Gore will be the nominee. Although he has tried and lost before, consider the following:
a: His book and movie are doing very well, and address the environment -- a "hot button" to Democratic party activists
b: He is doing the Oprah/late night circuit quite well.
c: He has "been to the mount", so he brings somewhat of a new perspective to the race
d: Most importantly, he and he alone can make the arguable statement or sentiment that "Had I been properly installed in 2000, we wouldn't be in the mess we are not."
Thus, I believe that, if Al Gore chooses to run, he will ultimately be the Democratic nominee for President in 2008.
As always, I appreciate the very intelligent sentiment expressed by fellow Gatherers. Do you agree? Disagree? Most importantly, why?
I look forward to your responses, and will publish my outlook on the Republicans soon.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 17
1. Biden has declared as well, so we need to add him to the mix, along with Richardson. While they are not front-runners, they are likely to influence the VP part of the ticket either by being in the running or by having a say in who will.
2. Gore will not be the nominee. Democrats do not renominate previous losers. He will forever be welcomed as a speaker, etc., but will never be on the national ticket again.
3. If I had to pick from your existing list today, I'd guess the ticket will be Obama and Edwards in some order. The geography is right and the ideology split is as well.
4. If, for some reason, Hillary ends up the nominee, the GOP will win regardless of who the candidate is UNLESS that candidate seriously messes up during the campaign.
IMNSHO :)
And, thanks to you both for your thoughts. Lynn, your comment about Democrats not nominating previous losers is entirely correct. My opinion, for what it's worth, is that he has (in his and my perceptual opinion) been to the mount, and "really did win" in 2000.
I love you both for your comments, love, and prayers.
John Edwards will never be nominated. He is a class action lawyer. This country holds class actions lawyers in contempt.
Al Gore will not run. He is a more effective spokesperson than a political candidate. He is enjoying life and probably has no plans to go back into the harsh media political light.
Hillary Clinton is my personal favorite. She has the financial connections to fund her campaign. She has a husband who is a political master. I would not count her out.
1. He did not take good staff advice when he got it; his senior staff was telling him he had to do a statewide recount or nothing (which I believe to have been accurate advice), and he went with 3 counties. It was precisely the inability to listen to good advice that blew the recount. This does not suggest he'd do any better in the Oval Office.
2. He was unable to lead; he's such a policy-wonk that he confuses knowledge with leadership. It's essential to "know things". But the art of leadership is making a vision accessible to others and persuading them to come along on the journey. He showed no aptitude for that at all.
As for Obama being "too young"... Teddy Roosevelt was 42 when he was sworn in, Clinton was 46, and Obama would be 47 or 48 (don't remember his birthday month).
I like Obama, however he is a freshman Senator w/ only 6 months experience. Both Clinton and Roosevelt had extensive political resumes prior to running for office. Politics is a bare knuckle sport. Obama has not been tested. This lack of political experience may contribute to his downfall.
Does any of that mean that he's a shoo-in or won't screw up? Well no.. Howard Dean was a governor and he managed to do quite a good job of shooting himself in the foot despite considerable experience in politics. As did Gary Hart. Ford was President when he announced that Eastern Europe didn't feel oppressed by the Soviets. Experience in office does not guarantee that stupid moments won't happen, and inexperience does not mean that someone cannot be succesful.
What determines success or failure is the ability .. or lack .. of the individual. And we won't know that until the campaign happens.
Hillary has been a successful senator, but she comes with very high negatives in her own right, and a lot of resentment toward Bill. There is also the underlying issue of how people will deal with the role of "the First Gentleman", esp. when that man is a former President. I don't see her overcoming all those hurdles, despite her considerable ability.
The two (likely) candidates that frame a vision for America that brings people along are Obama and Edwards.
Lynn and Mickey - Obama will be 47 in January 2009. That is 4 years older than John Kennedy was in January, 1961. He was elected to the Senate in 2004--more than "6 months experience" [in the US Senate].
Lynn, I agree with you that Obama has quite a bit more depth and experience in politics than most people give him credit for. The national spotlight is good for Obama. With the way that he electrifies audiences, the nation can get comfortable with Barack without his wearing out the welcome. I predict that he will "test" well.
I would apply the analysis in the article, intended for Gore, instead to Edwards: battle tested, name recognition, well-spoken, and right on the issues (it's the economy, stupid!).
I disagree with Lynn's analysis of Hillary Clinton. She will drag the incredibly popular former president almost everywhere. She is an effective Senator who is well-liked on both sides of the aisle. While it is true that the extreme Right (including talk radio) hates Hillary, I think she has a completely legitimate shot at the nomination. Six months ago I would have told you she was unelectable. Now I'm not at all sure. The Republican Party is self-destructing so quickly that any Democrat in play has to feel confident.
First, I am afraid to see either Hillary or Barack run. I think our country needs a Democrat in office and I don't think our country is ready to elect a woman or anyone of African heritage into office - which is a shame. I saw Barack on Oprah and I was really impressed with him, but I fear other people won't give him the chance. I really don't see Al Gore with a chance...so, what are the Dems going to do? I'd like to see some early polls on what America thinks of these early candidates.
Second, I was wondering if you've ever heard of Dwight Morris & Associates? They are also a nationally-known political firm. I worked with them while in college to write a few news stories about the 2004 election. If you're anything like DW&A, I would love to read more from you and your organization because I'm sure you find some very interesting info!
Yes the GOP is currently not in great shape. But I would not assume that the SwiftBoaters are dead, nor that the party won't find a way to regroup by election time. They do, after all, have nearly 2 years to pull this off and a powerful motive for wanting to hold onto the White House. Greg promises us a similar rundown of the GOP candidates next :)
Barack is a dynamic and charismatic character who is saying things that everyone wants to hear at the present time. Again his racial heritage will totally exclude some people voting for him and the "is America ready for an African heritage president" seems to apply. Also, his lack of national exposure and the tight rope one must walk on the national stage. Just ask Dean and Hart about that!
Gore will not run by his own, frequently repeated, statement, and I believe him.
Biden has his hat in the ring and would be an excellent president but he is yesterday's news and will not be nominated.
John Edwards has the drawback of being a trial lawyer, whom people love to hate. He also has the advantage of being a trial lawyer with it's fund raising ability and it's speaking experience in the art of convincing people. He's been through a national campaign and knows what is required. He too has great charisma.
The bottom line is a tough match between Hillary, Obama and Edwards and will Hillary's machine out perform the others in the caucuses and wipe out one of the others or will one of them prevail. Interesting scenario! My money would be on Hillary or Edwards and probably Edwards.
A final thought, would Hillary accept a vice-presidential nomination?