winning the Democratic nomination? This is the first in a series of
weekly posts that will forecast the odds that each Democratic hopeful
has in winning the nomination.
As the war in Iraq boils over and the Democratic Congress prepares
to assume its leadership position in January, it is probably not a good
idea to become too fixated on the 2008 race for president. I don't
plan to analyze this each day between now and next fall. However, this
winter is a time in which a lot of candidates will start making formal
announcements. In the coming weeks, I will pay close attention to who
is thinking of joining the field.
As General Wesley Clark, a 2004 presidential candidate, said
yesterday, he made a strategic error by getting into the race so late
last time around. When he joined the field in September of 2003, he
hardly had any funds and did not even hire a campaign manager until
November. By that time, he only had two months until the Iowa Caucus.
From watching what happened to Clark in '03, candidates will want to
get in early. Setting up a presidential exploratory committee offers
potential contenders a loophole in the federal elections law that
allows them to raise cash without formally declaring their candidacy.
Since Hillary Clinton already raised tens of millions of dollars,
hardly anyone will be able to compete with her unless they start
setting up exploratory committees immediately.
Without further adieu, here are the odds for each of the possible
Democratic contenders. I base this on potential appeal in early
battleground states, unfavorable rating, potential issues in late-'07
and early-'08, fundraising potential, and net-roots support. This is
more or less my analytical bias, and does not represent any bias for
who I want the Democratic nominee to be (I am undecided, anyway!):
- Hillary Clinton - 24% chance
- John Edwards - 17% chance
- Barack Obama - 16% chance
- Al Gore - 15% chance
- Evan Bayh - 7% chance
- Bill Richardson - 5% chance
- Joe Biden - 5% chance
- Wesley Clark - 5% chance
- Tom Vilsack - 3% chance
- John Kerry - 2% chance
- Chris Dodd - 1% chance
Keep in mind that these numbers will fluctuate over time, especially
when some candidates from this list officially take their names out of
the hat.
Every projection like this requires some kind of analysis. Here is
the way I see it. Hillary Clinton is definitely in the lead right now,
for the most part due to her significant money advantage that would
help mobilize get out the vote efforts and travel in the early primary
states (Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina). What she has
going against her is her vote for the war and her unpopularity among
Democratic activists.
That brings us to the race to become what I call the "anti-Hillary"
candidate. As of this moment, there is a log-jam between Barack Obama,
John Edwards and Al Gore. Voters who want an alternative besides
Hillary Clinton will likely choose between these three candidates.
John Edwards is very popular in the labor movement, who are more likely
to choose a Washington outsider that has stood against free trade
agreements like NAFTA and CAFTA. Al Gore is also a serious threat to
Hillary Clinton's nomination, and has a strong following in the
Northeast and out West. It still remains to be seen whether Gore's
green themes will catch on in Nevada, Iowa and South Carolina.
However, being that New Hampshire is in the Northeast, and being that
the state has historically respected independent-minded, maverick
candidates, Al Gore might even be the odds on favorite there. Then
there is the wild card: Barack Obama. The Illinois Senator is also a
threat to Hillary Clinton because he will grab a significant portion of
the female vote. Already pledging to announce his candidacy on the
Oprah Winfrey show, should he decide to enter the race, Obama might cut
Hillary's female voting base by a third. Out of the three -- Gore,
Edwards and Obama -- Edwards has a slight advantage because of his
popularity among local politicians in Iowa and Nevada. Edwards travels
to both places more than any other presidential hopeful in both
parties. In January of 2004, the Des Moines Register newspaper
endorsed him. Over the last half year, Edwards has campaigned with
hotel unions in Las Vegas. The Edwards strategy appears center around
winning Iowa and Nevada by getting the support of labor unions, while
conceding New Hampshire and then going after South Carolina, which he
won in 2004.
When you move down the list, New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson,
Senator Joe Biden, and Senator Evan Bayh are still within striking
distance. They don't have a lot of name recognition, especially Evan
Bayh. But of the three, Indiana Senator Evan Bayh definitely has the
advantage. By next fall, those who have never heard of him today will
learn to appreciate him as a very positive, consensus-building leader.
As an opponent of gay marriage and flag burning, it would be difficult
for the Republicans to attack Bayh in the general election. However,
his biggest obstacle might come from the NRA, which has consistently
opposed his strong gun control stances. He voted for the Iraq war and
against partial birth abortion. However, he did vote against a repeal
of the estate tax, in support of investigating the no-bid contracts in
Iraq, and yes on a bill that would have reduced our dependence on
foreign oil (had it passed). He is very much an environmentalist, but
conservative on social issues. Bill Richardson and Joe Biden both have
foreign policy credentials. It is highly probable that they would be
considered as a vice presidential pick.
As far as the remaining candidates are concerned, here is all that
needs to be said. John Kerry would be committing political suicide by
running again, especially after his botched joke. Chris Dodd lacks
publicity. However, if the Connecticut Senator can pass his bill that
would repeal the Military Commissions Act, then he will have helped
himself. Tom Vilsack has declared his intention to run. Keep in mind
though that Vilsack is not even catching on in his home state of Iowa,
which still seems to be split between Edwards and Clinton. Wesley
Clark lacks both attention and money, therefore he would be wise to
enter the race ASAP.
Again, I am going to try and make this a weekly thing. If it
catches on, great. If not, then I will find some other way of
critiquing the field.
The '08 Democratic Nomination: Playing the odds
