The 2008 Campaign has begun

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
On the Dem side I think Biden has a decent shot because he will "wear well" like Kerry did.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm skeptical Biden will ever convince donors he's credible -- by "credible", I mean: "has a legitimate chance of winning".

[ QUOTE ]
Edwards would surprise me because I don't think he will do well outside of the South.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think Edwards has a very good chance to be the "strategic primary voters should choose me, because my positions are closely aligned to Clinton's but I'm much more electable" guy who could mount the anti-Hillary movement. He should succeed where guys like Bayh fail, because Dem. voters (voters who are the most intensely partisan) may not want to temper their ideological/policy expectations by voting for a centrist merely for electability purposes when they could have both ideological/policy alignment and electability with Edwards.

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

I won't rule Richardson out but I think he'd be behind Clinton, Edwards, and (if he decided to run) Obama if the primaries were held today.

[sam h]

[ 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 ]

This is true but you have to adjust for two factors:

(1) Clinton had way more political talent than any of the longshots under discussion here. The guy was mesmerizing on the campaign trail, allowing him to not only rise from from obscurity but also to fight back after he got reamed by some sex scandal stuff even before the primaries started.

(2) The field was really open in 1992. Big name Dems steered clear because Bush looked unbeatable after the Gulf War. So when Bush started to tank, Clinton was fighting the likes of Paul Tsongas and Jerry Brown for the nomination.

[Madtown]

Predictions

1) Hilary will finish 2nd in the primaries. It will be close, but not razor-thin.
2) Al Gore will not run, but he will effect the primaries nonetheless (endorsements, appearances, etc). His effect will be positive for whomever he backs.
3) Kerry will not run.
4) Edwards will run. He will get creamed, finishing at least a distant 3rd to Hilary, perhaps worse.
5) Clark will not run.
6) The nomination will go to one of the following four: Richardson, Biden, Vilsack, and Bayh.
7) If Obama runs, all bets are off. However, whether he runs or not, I would be unsurprised to see him be named the VP candidate.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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?

[/ QUOTE ]

Biden was thinking about putting together a run in '04 but he couldn't get the money together. He's essentially tried to run twice now ('88 and '04) and has made no secret he plans on exploring another run in '08. Despite being one of the most visible Democrats in the Senate, each time (including now) he's failed to build any kind of momentum (I concede he had some missteps in '88). Maybe something unique will happen where he can convey to activists/donors that he's worthy of their resources, but I just don't see it being a likely outcome.

Of course, anything could happen.

[sam h]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
On the Dem side I think Biden has a decent shot because he will "wear well" like Kerry did.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm skeptical Biden will ever convince donors he's credible -- by "credible", I mean: "has a legitimate chance of winning".

[ QUOTE ]
Edwards would surprise me because I don't think he will do well outside of the South.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think Edwards has a very good chance to be the "strategic primary voters should choose me, because my positions are closely aligned to Clinton's but I'm much more electable" guy who could mount the anti-Hillary movement. He should succeed where guys like Bayh fail, because Dem. voters (voters who are the most intensely partisan) may not want to temper their ideological/policy expectations by voting for a centrist merely for electability purposes when they could have both ideological/policy alignment and electability with Edwards.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with this wholeheartedly. I do think the big wild card here is Gore though, who could jump in to this same role. He has had a pretty remarkable makeover, his environmental activism has earned him a lot of grass-roots Democratic support in the last five years, and he has this symbolic value for Dems in that he personifies both what-could-have-been-without-Bush and the Clinton years.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

I won't rule Richardson out but I think he'd be behind Clinton, Edwards, and (if he decided to run) Obama if the primaries were held today.

[/ QUOTE ]

Richardson has a lot of positives, but I think the problems Nate mentioned are real. Also, I have heard (completely unsubstantiated) rumors from sources I consider semi-credible that he has trouble keeping it in his pants and that he might not hold up too well under the scrutiny of a presidential election.

[sam h]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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?

[/ QUOTE ]

Biden was thinking about putting together a run in '04 but he couldn't get the money together. He's essentially tried to run twice now ('88 and '04) and has made no secret he plans on exploring another run in '08. Despite being one of the most visible Democrats in the Senate, each time (including now) he's failed to build any kind of momentum (I concede he had some missteps in '88). Maybe something unique will happen where he can convey to activists/donors that he's worthy of their resources, but I just don't see it being a likely outcome.

Of course, anything could happen.

[/ QUOTE ]

I see Biden as one of these guys whose success as a senator has gone to his head, such that he has little self-awareness about his likeability. There is a reason he can never get the money together.

[Nate tha\\\' Great]

[ QUOTE ]
7) If Obama runs, all bets are off. However, whether he runs or not, I would be unsurprised to see him be named the VP candidate.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think Obama is actually quite unlikely to be the Veep nominee. Let's look at the potential Democratic tickets.

Clinton-Obama. Unless the Dems are reaaaaaaaaaly confident based on polling and focus-grouping this ticket, I don't think they're going to nominate a woman and a black man in the same election. Sorry, but it's the truth. You can find a lot of quotes from Democratic insiders that say as much.

Edwards-Obama. Here you run into the Lloyd Bentsen problem: you don't want the Veep candidate to outshine the presidential candidate. This is particularly problematic with Edwards, whom IMO has problems with appearing sufficiently assertive. But it would also be a problem with Bayh, et. al. because of the "charisma gap". Richardson-Obama runs into the minority problem. Clark-Obama is a well balanced ticket, I guess, but I don't know how serious Clark's candidacy is.

Gore-Obama, e.g. the Progressive Wet Dream. Maybe too progressive, although it's also a ticket that would get absolutely absurd turnout among the base. The thing is, I don't think both Obama and Gore run for the nomination, and I think Obama probably gets first dibs on making his choice. But I think you could see sort of a quid-pro-quo here, where Obama doesn't run, gets behind Gore, and becomes his Veep.

Also, we should keep in mind that Mark Warner remains an extremely attractive Veep candidate for the Dems, unless there was some underlying reason that he withdrew from Presidential consideration.

[Case Closed]

[ QUOTE ]

Gore-Obama, e.g. the Progressive Wet Dream. Maybe too progressive, although it's also a ticket that would get absolutely absurd turnout among the base. The thing is, I don't think both Obama and Gore run for the nomination, and I think Obama probably gets first dibs on making his choice. But I think you could see sort of a quid-pro-quo here, where Obama doesn't run, gets behind Gore, and becomes his Veep.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh if dreams could come true.

Dvault,

Thanks for the list. Well done.

[Jeremy517]

The 2008 campaign began a while ago. Numerous presidential hopefuls have been taking trips to Iowa and New Hampshire.

[xorbie]

Can someone explain what is so progressive about Obama? I don't know much about the man besides that he is suddenly the Democrat everyone loves to love.