|
|
#11
11-09-2006, 05:10 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: The 2008 Campaign has begun
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I am still new to the politicing scene(only 20 years old). How long till all the dems and reps come out of the woodwork and make it offical about running for president? [/ QUOTE ] As it is right now, you can probably make a short list candidates from each party with a very real shot of running and winning the nomination. While an "official announement" is a nice way to spill some ink and get some face time, you can narrow down the possible field right now, regardless of an official announcement -- running for President is a lengthy process and many have been getting their organizations, fund-raisers, PACs, strategy teams, etc. in place for a quite a while now: Democrats Almost Certainly Running: Sen. Clinton former Sen. Edwards Gov. Vilsack Sen. Bayh Sen. Feingold Wesley Clark Gov. Richardson Democrats Maybe Running But With No Real Shot of Winning the Nomination: Sen. Kerry Sen. Biden Sen. Dodd Wildcards: former VP Gore Sen. Obama ---------------- GOPers Almost Certainly Running: Sen. McCain Gov. Romney Gov. Huckabee former NYC mayor Rudy Giuliani former House Speaker Newt Gingrich GOPers Maybe Running But With No Real Short of Winning the Nomination: former Sen. Allen Sen. Hagel Sen. Brownback former Sen. Frist Rep. Tancredo Wilcards: Gov. Jeb Bush Sec. State Rice I think this is pretty comprehensive. If I've left anyone out, they likely fall under the "No Real Shot of Winning" groups, with the caveat that Howard Dean was relatively unkown and a huge long shot to win the '04 Dem. Nomination in the autumn of 2002. He obviously didn't win, but it's hard to say he didn't become very relevant in the nomination process. [/ QUOTE ] Vilsack, Feingold and Richardson might belong in the "no real shot of winning" camp. I don't mean to sounds like a cynic, but they all seem like the classic "5th place in the New Hampshire primary" candidate. Plus Dems will have at least one (HRC) and possibly 2-3 huge names running, which kills fundraising efforts. Wesley Clark is in the "wild card" category as far as I know. Duncan Hunter is running for the Republicans but has no shot at winning. Pataki should be listed somewhere on the Republican side but I don't know which category he belongs in. In terms of most-to-least likely to become our next president, we're probably looking at: 1) McCain (R) 2) Clinton (D) 3) Giuliani (R) 4) Obama (D) 5) Gore (D) 6) Edwards (D) 7) Romney (R) 8) Huckabaee (R) 9) Bayh (D) 10) Gingrich (R) 
|
|
#12
11-09-2006, 05:49 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The 2008 Campaign has begun
[ QUOTE ]
Vilsack, Feingold and Richardson might belong in the "no real shot of winning" camp. I don't mean to sounds like a cynic, but they all seem like the classic "5th place in the New Hampshire primary" candidate. [/ QUOTE ] Vilsack, Feingold and Richardson are all between 2%-3% on Tradesports. So that's a fair point. Given that there's 5%-10% chance that one of them end's up being the nominee, perhaps I should have added a 4th category for "Low Probability of Winning Worthy of Mention", although that's not entirely different from the "Guys With No Shot" category. However, I think it's important to distinguish between these three and the likes of Kerry, Biden, and Dodd, who are all strongly considering a run but effectively have no chance (in fairness, Kerry is listed at 2% at Tradesports). I'm fairly certain an "anti-Hillary" effort will be mounted in the Democratic primaries -- and that certainly "anti-Hillary" movement could be manifest itself in the form of support and cash for Vilsack, Feingold, or Richardson. Many of the best empirical studies demonstrate that primary voters are indeed strategic, so if voters are questioning voting for Hillary in the primary because of her electability in the general election, I just don't see Biden/Kerry/Dodd filling that void. [ QUOTE ] Plus Dems will have at least one (HRC) and possibly 2-3 huge names running, which kills fundraising efforts. [/ QUOTE ] This is true and a good point. It's why I'm completely ruling out Biden, Dodd, and Kerry -- they're all dipping from Northeastern center-left donor pool that Clinton currently pwns. [ QUOTE ] Wesley Clark is in the "wild card" category as far as I know. [/ QUOTE ] Even if he decides to run, I question what his real chances are. But this is a good point that the likelihood of him running is nowhere no certain. [ QUOTE ] Duncan Hunter is running for the Republicans but has no shot at winning. Pataki should be listed somewhere on the Republican side but I don't know which category he belongs in. [/ QUOTE ] Tradesports has both of these guys at < 1%. [ QUOTE ] In terms of most-to-least likely to become our next president, we're probably looking at: 1) McCain (R) 2) Clinton (D) 3) Giuliani (R) 4) Obama (D) 5) Gore (D) 6) Edwards (D) 7) Romney (R) 8) Huckabaee (R) 9) Bayh (D) 10) Gingrich (R) [/ QUOTE ] A pretty good list. I think we could probably draw a dotted-line after Romney, because I'm not bullish on Huckabee, Bayh or Gingrich having any real shot.
|
|
#13
11-09-2006, 05:49 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The 2008 Campaign has begun
[ QUOTE ]
As it is right now, you can probably make a short list candidates from each party with a very real shot of running and winning the nomination. While an "official announement" is a nice way to spill some ink and get some face time, you can narrow down the possible field right now, regardless of an official announcement -- running for President is a lengthy process and many have been getting their organizations, fund-raisers, PACs, strategy teams, etc. in place for a quite a while now: [/ QUOTE ] Nice list to focus the discussion. On the Dem side I think Biden has a decent shot because he will "wear well" like Kerry did. I think W. Clark has no shot unless he's much improved his game and Edwards goes away. Edwards would surprise me because I don't think he will do well outside of the South. Richardson talks well so it wouldn't surprise me if he leaps out in front in Iowa/NH where he gets to go door to door. What I'm most confident about is that Hillary Clinton will almost definitely finish exactly 2nd. On the Republican side, I think Romney has the best shot, followed by Frist. He's been my governor for the last 4 years and I can't remember a single thing he said, but you're left with the vague impression that he's competent. Someone I know described him as an "empty suit" before he got elected, and that's exactly what he is, but an empty suit is vaguely acceptable to all. I think McCain will finish 2nd no matter what.
|
|
#14
11-09-2006, 05:51 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The 2008 Campaign has begun
[ QUOTE ]
Vilsack, Feingold and Richardson are all between 2%-3% on Tradesports. [/ QUOTE ] I'm not entirely certain about this, since I'm not that old, but didn't Bill Clinton show similiar polling numbers prior to his election in 1992? Just food for thought.
|
|
#15
11-09-2006, 05:52 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The 2008 Campaign has begun
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Vilsack, Feingold and Richardson are all between 2%-3% on Tradesports. [/ QUOTE ] I'm not entirely certain about this, since I'm not that old, but didn't Bill Clinton show similiar polling numbers prior to his election in 1992? Just food for thought. [/ QUOTE ] Yeah we really have no clue at this point. I love Richardson at 40:1 though.
|
|
#16
11-09-2006, 05:53 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The 2008 Campaign has begun
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Vilsack, Feingold and Richardson are all between 2%-3% on Tradesports. [/ QUOTE ] I'm not entirely certain about this, since I'm not that old, but didn't Bill Clinton show similiar polling numbers prior to his election in 1992? Just food for thought. [/ QUOTE ] Yes and it's a fair point. That's why I added the caveat about Dean and the 2004 nomination. Anything could happen.
|
|
#17
11-09-2006, 05:57 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The 2008 Campaign has begun
[ QUOTE ]
This is true and a good point. It's why I'm completely ruling out Biden, Dodd, and Kerry -- they're all dipping from Northeastern center-left donor pool that Clinton currently pwns. [/ QUOTE ] Biden is on Imus and MSNBC a lot. Don't you think he could get a lot of donations from rich Wall Street democrats who don't like Hillary?
|
|
#18
11-09-2006, 05:57 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The 2008 Campaign has begun
The thing with the Tradesports numbers is that they have to factor in who is running. Personally, the only person I put at >70% to run is Hillary. There are a whole bunch of dark horses that could turn into the next Clinton.
I think McCain's high Tradesports percentage to win is way inflated because the race hasn't even started taking shape. For example, I would put Obama at #2 on Nate's list if he runs and move Gore down a few pegs because I don't think he's running.
|
|
#20
11-09-2006, 06:05 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The 2008 Campaign has begun
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Vilsack, Feingold and Richardson might belong in the "no real shot of winning" camp. I don't mean to sounds like a cynic, but they all seem like the classic "5th place in the New Hampshire primary" candidate. [/ QUOTE ] Vilsack, Feingold and Richardson are all between 2%-3% on Tradesports. So that's a fair point. Given that there's 5%-10% chance that one of them end's up being the nominee, perhaps I should have added a 4th category for "Low Probability of Winning Worthy of Mention", although that's not entirely different from the "Guys With No Shot" category. However, I think it's important to distinguish between these three and the likes of Kerry, Biden, and Dodd, who are all strongly considering a run but effectively have no chance (in fairness, Kerry is listed at 2% at Tradesports). [/ QUOTE ] I don't necessarily trust Tradesports to be authoritative here, particularly when we're talking about the difference between say .5% and 2.0%. Richardson has two problems, IMO. He doesn't look presedential, and he's came out a little too firmly for medical marijuana. Neither of those things should be problems, but I think they will be. Feingold, I think, is simply too liberal. I don't think either party has nominated a true populist since McGovern, and we all know how that went. Vilsack, I think, lacks the name recognition and isn't "sexy" enough for a presidential nominee. [ QUOTE ] I'm fairly certain an "anti-Hillary" effort will be mounted in the Democratic primaries -- and that certainly "anti-Hillary" movement could be manifest itself in the form of support and cash for Vilsack, Feingold, or Richardson. Many of the best empirical studies demonstrate that primary voters are indeed strategic, so if voters are questioning voting for Hillary in the primary because of her electability in the general election, I just don't see Biden/Kerry/Dodd filling that void. [/ QUOTE ] If Vilsack, Richardson and Feingold could somehow combine their candidacy, then I think they'd have a shot (at the nomination, maybe not the presidency). But as it stands, it's sort of a catch-22: it's hard for one of them to gain momentum without fundraising, and it's hard for them to get fundraising without momentum.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
