Tyler Cowen, following Dan Drezner, offers his thoughts on who is likely to be elected President in 2008. (A completely different question, of course, than who you think should be President.) Unusually, I not only disagree with all of Tyler’s conclusions, but also his reasoning. But it did remind me that all the internets are waiting on tenterhooks for my own handicapping of the race. So, without further ado, the Democrats:
- Hillary Clinton. The presumptive front-runner, although with obvious baggage. And no, her husband doesn’t count as a liability; he’s a masterful political strategist, a great campaigner, and extremely well-liked, as Al Gore would have realized in 2000 if his own political instincts were more highly developed than those of a mole rat. But Hillary herself is not a great strategist, is only a competent campaigner, and isn’t all that well-liked. Republicans would unite against her in a general election to an unprecedented degree. Overall, her skill set is much better attuned to being a Senator than a President, or a Presidential candidate. And she is a woman; overt sexism might not be the issue, but in the general election the Republicans will make sure that every misogynist stereotype is in constant media rotation. But she might win; she has the money, a great team, and the real Hillary-haters are a vocal minority, not a true majority. Tyler says that Americans are tired of dynasties, which I would find more persuasive if they stopped electing them.
- Barack Obama. Longtime readers know that I am down with Obama. He is the real deal: smart, committed, charismatic, and sincere. He doesn’t have much experience in national politics, but that’s not nearly the liability in a Presidential campaign that many make it out to be. He was unambiguously against the war in Iraq, which — contrary to the stale wisdom that foreign policy always favors Republicans — will be a big vote-getter. People really don’t like the war, and they will vote on the issue, and it will favor any Democrat who has the wit to take advantage. On the other hand, he is black. We live in a racist country, and there are plenty of people who will vote on that basis, even if they don’t tell pollsters. And his middle name is “Hussein,” which Fox news will never ever let you forget. The only reason why these aren’t deal-breakers is the hope that they only apply to people who would never vote for a Democrat in the first place; but that might be wishful thinking.
- John Edwards. A very plausible sleeper candidate, who would be a comfortable front-runner in an ordinary year without the Clinton/Obama celebrity factor to deal with. Gained invaluable experience during the Kerry campaign — hopefully, learning some difficult lessons about what not to do. Accrued serious points among primary voters by admitting he was wrong about the Iraq war (in stark contrast to Hillary), and has an actual substantive message about poverty. Comes across as too artificial and slick, which can be a big disadvantage, especially to Democratic candidates; also, a relatively weak debater, as was evident in his matchup against
VoldemortCheney. Originally, the primary calendar was tuned almost precisely to his advantage; now, with California and other big states moving up, money will be more important, which won’t help him. Definitely in third right now, but a come-from-behind victory isn’t out of the question. - Someone else. None of the people actually running has a chance, although Bill Richardson is intriguing. Wesley Clark might have been an interesting possibility, but the top three are already sucking up all the oxygen, and it’s basically too late to jump in at this point (less than 20 months before the election!).
And the Republicans:
- John McCain. The formerly-presumptive frontrunner who has somehow frittered away his status. The McCain aura was always a bit of a mystery; despite being reliably conservative on most issues, he was able to pick and choose a public stance here and there to burnish his image as a “maverick.” So much so that some (crazy) Democrats wanted him on their ticket in 2000. But it’s no mystery why he isn’t running away with the primary race; over the last few years he has embarked on a single-minded campaign to completely undermine his hard-earned reputation as an independent-minded straight shooter. Where he used to stand up to the religious right, now he curries their favor, although he does so with such awkwardness that nobody is really fooled. And he has become the biggest supporter of the Iraq war outside the White House and the Connecticut for Lieberman party. McCain has managed to transform himself from a figure who was widely respected, even by people who didn’t agree with him, into someone who nobody trusts. Nevertheless, given the weakness of the rest of the Republican field, he still might back into the nomination.
- Rudy Giuliani. The fact that Rudy Giuliani is currently leading in Republican polls, and that smart people occasionally opine that he could win the election or even be a good President, is a source of unlimited amazement to me. Yes, he gave a couple of stirring speeches after 9/11. Something tells me that this will not be enough to overcome his penchant for dressing in drag, his support for funding abortions for poor women (always a winner among Republican primary voters), and the fact that he is hated by firefighters, by New Yorkers, and by his own kids. He’s already lost his own campaign book, and is weighed down by his association with Bernard Kerik. Personality-wise, he’s a thin-skinned autocrat who can’t handle criticism — something that, I’m taken to understand, occasionally comes your way during a Presidential campaign. If Rudy Giuliani wins the 2008 general election, I promise to never again make a political prediction in public for the rest of my life.
- Mitt Romney. Oh yeah, a pro-choice pro-gay-rights pro-gun-control Mormon from Massachusetts is exactly what Republican primary voters in South Carolina are looking for. His chances look good in the Utah primary, though. Why are we even talking about this? Of course, Romney has conveniently changed his positions on nearly every hot-button social issue since he shifted his sights from the Massachusetts governor’s mansion to the White House. It won’t help.
- Someone else. Unlike on the Democratic side, it seems completely plausible that a latecomer could swoop in to change the complexion of the Republican race. The names being bandied about thus far, however — Fred Thompson? Newt Gingrich? — aren’t inspiring anyone. But this field is not yet set in stone, and there’s plenty of room for intrigue to come.
And the winner is: I don’t know. The Democratic primary race is too close to call, but I’ll be happy to predict that whoever wins it will waltz into the White House. On the Democratic side: three solid contenders. On the Republican side: a cross-dressing autocrat, a New England Mormon, and an old guy whose entire schtick is sincerity but who has abandoned all pretence of having any. All of whom are running on the legacy of one of the least popular Presidents in history. Are you kidding me? Not since 1976 (post-Watergate) have Democratic chances looked this good this far before the election.
But, since there’s no accountability in this game, I’ll go ahead and translate my gut feelings into a quantitative prediction for the chances to become President in 2008: Obama 35%, Clinton 30%, Edwards 15%, McCain 10%, any other Republican 10%. Subject to change without notice. It’s early, but I’m happy to think that there’s a better than even chance that our next President will either be a woman or an African-American. Either would be a watershed moment in our history, something of which we could (quite belatedly) be proud.
I happen to think this is one of the most satisfying group of candidates we’ve had in a long, long time. McCain, Guiliani, Clinton, Obama all would make fine presidents and obviously it appeases the centrist in me.
I personally find McCain the best choice, b/c I agree with his strategy for Iraq and his no nonsense stance, but having said that, hes too old and will lose to Guiliani.
I also don’t think either of the democrat front runners have a plausible chance against Guiliani in an election. He carries a sort of anti bush aura in the sense that people view him as supremely competent and a great manager. The only way he’ll lose is by character assassination, which will be tough to pull off after his role after 9/11.
One thing that always annoys me: noting that Obama has little experience. He has the same amount of time in Congress that another guy had when he ran and became president: Abe Lincoln. And Abe seems to have worked out ok
People who claim none of the candidates have any experience are missing the point. There is no such thing as “experience” for the job of president. If I told you failed haberdasher was going to be President, would you think much of him? Suppose his name was Harry S. Truman? Suppose I told you a political appointee and rich sissy was made governor of New York, then kicked upstairs as VP to get tid of him? Would you think he had any prospect of being a notable president? How about if his name was Teddy Roosevelt?
Now suppose I told you one of the greatest and most respected generals in American history became President — you’d expect a lot of him, wouldn’t you? Suppose his name was Ulysses S. Grant, head a disastrously corruption-plagued White House?
You just can’t tell. Experience means nothing. We’ll just have to see.
What bothers me about Obama is his vagueness. Lots of talk about “the audicity of hope” — but where are his actual plans? There are plenty of simple striaghtforward things that could be done today to fix the America is in. Cut the U.S. military budget by some huge amount — if we can’t defeat a bunch of 15-year-old kids carrying AK-47s, then the U.S. Amry is worthless and we should downsize it. Go back to a 30,000 man standing army of the kind we had back in 1930 and spend the money saved on paying down our debt (so the CHinese can’t blackmail us by threatening to yank the current accounts out of our economy) and rebuilding America’s crumbling briges and roads and sewers and water mains. Put the usury interest caps back in place nationwide — there’s no damn excuse for allowing predatory lenders to charge 300% per annum, as we do now. Limit credit card interest rates to a fair rate of return above inlfation. Nationalize health care. Emabrk on a crash program to increase autombolile mileage. Crank up a modern network of safe TRIGA-design or pebble-bed thorium breeder reactors to remove our dependence on middle eastern oil.
These are easy to specify. There’s nothing mysterious about any of this. We can do these things. We need to do these things. We can climb out of our mess. But Obama can’t seem to get the words out of his mouth. Does he have any plans? What are his specific policy proposals? I haven’t heard one. Not one.
Like him, he sounds great, but I want to hear specific policy proposals on the table.
mclaren,
I agree with all of your recommendations and would love to see specifics on them from any or all of the candidates. I would add on the energy front/climate change front: cellulosic ethanol, interesting work in Norway generating electricty from the fresh/salt water gradient, seeding oceans with iron to increase phytoplankton growth absorbing more CO2,innovative methods to desulfurize coal prior to burning, a hard look at the food chain and whether we can afford to be carnivores from an energy/climate change perspective. Also more lucrative tax credits for home energy efficiency. On the health care front, nationalize the system and use information technology to reduce costs/inefficencies.
But… I’m not holding my breath.
Elliot
Sean has – any argument over specifics aside – confirmed himself as a member of the vanishingly small class of political writers whose opinions are worth listening to, simply by admitting he can’t make a prediction in this race. Thanks, Sean!
We are in new historical territory, and the patterns of the past are no longer of much utility. None of the current candidates seems like a winner, but someone has to win…the same is true in the world at large.
We live in interesting times.
My interest in Obama (which is an interest in, not a dedication to or belief in) come from the fact that he is the only politician in my experience – a lifetime of highly politicized experience – who does not set of my BS detector every time he opens his mouth. In the past I have been more than willing to vote for lesser-of-evils scoundrels if they can be counted on issues-wise; the notion of actually voting for a decent human being appeals to me, so I’m trying to learn more.
I know Obama slightly, and my partner has been supporting him since his first (failed) bid for the Illinois senate. Before he announced his run for US Senate I spent an hour or so talking with him one-on-one (so he also talks to physicists!) and came away very impressed. He is thoughtful, articulate and intelligent, three characteristics very high on my list of presidential traits. Also straightforward in his opinions, with the gift of being able to hold his ground without insulting or offending someone who might disagree with him (up to a point). Again very useful for a president. His ability to talk comfortably with people from many different backgrounds is sometimes (deliberately) misread as not holding any definite positions, but I think reflects more his personal history. He is able to reach downstate Illinois farmers and inner city Chicago residents equally well because he has lived in both of these cultures. I’ve heard him make the same points to both of these groups, but in slightly different language. This is a skill we could use more of — not telling people what they want to hear, but telling them what you think is important in a way that they can hear it.
Equally important is the fact that he has good political sense. (Which has been evident in both my personal conversations with him and in observing his (successful) campaign for US Senate.) Knowing how to manuever in a political environment is not a negative — it’s an essential prerequisite. A president who expects to accomplish anything needs this skill in order to work effectively with Congress and with leaders from around the world. And a candidate needs it to get elected.
Early in his Senate campaign we held a fundraiser for him, and I was told by many people many times over that it was a waste of time because he could never get elected (his name was strange, he was running against the Chicago democratic machinery, etc). He campaigned in a strong, consistent and dignified manner, and was eleceted because the more people got to hear and see him, the more impressed they were. Suburban Republican friends who have never voted off the GOP ticket are now supporters.
He still has a lot to learn re a presidential election (as does every first time candidate) but he showed an amazing ability to learn and grow over the course of his Senate campaign — another vital characteristic in a candidate for a position that will require the ability to learn and adapt to whatever is happening in the world.
As for not fleshing out detailed plans, I suspect that may be political good sense. Presidential campaigns have traditionally been content-lite. Barack did come out strongly, vocally and consistently against the Iraq war at a time when very few other political figures were willing to so much as give the appearance of questioning the administration. Read his speech from the fall of 2002
http://www.barackobama.com/2002/10/26/remarks_of_illinois_state_sen.php
Fred Thompson isn’t inspiring anyone? Once again, Sean Carroll erroneously invokes pluralis majestatis.
Fred and Newt bring significant personal baggage. Newt’s is pretty well known. Fred’s not so well known.
But for that matter so does Rudy….
Elliot
I have to agree with Dinsdale. In ’08, I can almost guarantee that the Dems win. Why? Iraq Iraq Iraq Iraq. And if Iran too, if Bush decides he can’t live with Iran having peaceful nuclear technology (I don’t believe they want nuclear weapons – not yet anyway).
Between Obama and Hillary, my bet is on Hillary. She’s got a hell of a lot more money, and that’s the name of the game in American politics. Obama will be “the people’s choice,” lose because he lacks “experience,” and he will get a ton of brownie points from the Dem Leadership Committee (DLC) for stumping for Hillary.
Unless the GOP digs up an anti-war/harsh war critic who is also conservative enough to get the base of their party (pro-war pro-gun Christian fanatics) excited, 2008 is out of the question. Or if the U.S. wins the war in Iraq (haha).
And when I said I agreed with Dinsdale, I meant on his comments regarding the Dems and foreign policy. On immigration, I’d have to say he’s an anti-immigrant racist.
Sure Fred Thompson is impressive, but I prefer Steven Hill (aka Adam Schiff, the original Law & Order DA). Or Dr. Olivet. She’d get my vote for sure.
This is a test to see if all of my comments are blocked by your spam blocker or just my last one. Sorry for the interruption.
Big fan of the blog.
Here’s some food for thought. If American voters have learned anything is that the next president and his administration must be evaulated on competency.
Senators have a poor track record of becoming presidents. They rarely are given any opportunities to make decisions (rather they get lumped in for being part of the “wheel-spinning” that is our Congress).
Governors and big city mayors can generally use their track record of leadership as a resume for being a good president. What do senators use as their track record?
Hillary voted for the war and then against it. What did we learn from John Kerry’s attempt to explain that? The public doesn’t buy it! John McCain is so desperate to become president that he’ll say or do anything for one more vote (which will cost him two votes in the process).
So, with all that being said, I think it’s going to come down to whether Barack Obama can withstand the pressure and scrutiny of a presidential race (without imploding like Howard Dean) and whether Rudy Guiliani being able to deal with his closet skeletons like Bill Clinton did in ’92.
What percentage of eligible voters in the state of Illinois actually voted for Barack Obama?
Though this is just speculation, one of Obama’s greatest strengths will be his ability to get votes from people who would not otherwise vote. This comes from his unmatched charisma and skilled rhetoric. Any candidate who can get a crowd as impassioned about policy as much as he can stands a great chance. Furthermore, the demographic most notorious for avoiding the ballot box (18-30 year olds) seems to favor Obama overwhelmingly (read the polls or simply listen to the reaction of the Daily Show audience each time his name is mentioned).
And of course, he has the Iraq issue in his back pocket.
If you want to know why Giuliani won’t become President, watch this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IrE6FMpai8
The Inconvenient Truth left me a very favorable impression of Al Gore.
Does anyone know why he is not running?
Does he think he has little chance?
Does he fear something if he runs?
Or is he just lurking for the right moment? Or he has had enough?
My preference would be a duo of Gore as president and Obama as VP.
Whoever becomes the next president, I’m afraid he/she will inherit a financial and deplomatic mess.
The Political Science answer to this is fairly unambiguously Hillary Clinton as Dem nominee, as far as I can tell.
To the extent that Political Science (ie try to tease something useful out of very small data sets with a constantly varying background) means anything, the evidence of the past has been that the current (ie post1972) nomination process is something of a sham, that the real work happens in the “Invisible Primary” which consists of obtainining the endorsement/support of ward leaders and higher in the party. This seems to be a significantly more important factor than national popularity, popularity amongst party members, money raised, etc.
Everything I see leads me to believe that HC is far ahead on this score.
On the Republican side, amusing as it is to see the party imploding, I cannot see any of the three stooges as being especially popular to ward leaders, so god knows what will happen.
One could argue that the internet changes everything, that whereas in 1996 or whatever the rank and file voted as the ward leaders told them to/suggested they do, now they have enough info to behave differently. Perhaps, although my guess would be that, while this may be true in the future, we aren’t there yet.
As for the election, the most significant driver (from what I can remember)) is the state of the economy at the time of the election (not what is was like average over the last 4 years, or what it looks like it’s headed to). War’s being lost don’t help, though there are few data points. Desire for change (ie switch parties just for the sake of switching) is not insignificant. My guess would be that the perfect storm we’re headed to as housing collapses, trade imbalance is out of control, money is wasted on the military rather than anything more useful, health-care continues to rise, etc, will break before the election, and not early enough before that it could somehow be hidden in time. So my guess (based on the best the limited science of this field has to say, rather than my hopes and dreams) would be that the dem nominee becomes president, and that that nominee will be Ms Clinton.
(VP? I know of no research that tracks that, which means no more than that my knowledge of this subject is very limited. Presumably it will be whoever of Obama and Edwards is perceived as being more likely to pull in the marginal Republican voter. On those grounds, my guess would be that, sorry Obama, it’ll be Edwards not you.)
McCain is in favor of attacking Iran, if diplomatic pressure and sanctions fail to persuade Iran to suspend their uranium enrichment program. I think that this issue will become very important at election time, because it doesn’t look like Iran will suspend their enrichment program anytime soon.
Unfortunately you probably need to update the percentatages as it appears that Edwards will be focusing on his wife’s health at this point.
sorry late to read the post.. as to Rudy…the thing with that firefighters union has many undertones. Pre Nov 01 Rudy had very good relations with both police and firefighters. As to NY hating Rudy, consider he was twice elected as a Republican in a city that is overwhelmingly democratic and he is widely credited for the turnaround and resurgence of the city. Having worked in NYC during the 80s and 90s, I can first hand say you can’t begin to compare pre to post Rudy. As to the press club dinners in drag, well.. I don’t think he’ll be getting to many dates!
Dimesdale,
Obama got 70% of the votes cast; 3.5 million voted for him.
That represents 54% of the 6.44 million registered voters, and 36.8% of the approx. 9.5 million eligible to vote.
Thanks John Casey.
I wouldn’t rule out the R’s running Fred Thompson. At least it would get him off Law & Order.
What baggage does Fred Thompson bring? The recent slip in Law & Order ratings?