The '08 Democratic Nomination: Playing the odds

Who stands the best shot at 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!):

1. Hillary Clinton - 24% chance
2. John Edwards - 17% chance
3. Barack Obama - 16% chance
4. Al Gore - 15% chance
5. Evan Bayh - 7% chance
   
6. Bill Richardson - 5% chance
7. Joe Biden - 5% chance
8. Wesley Clark - 5% chance
9. Tom Vilsack - 3% chance
10. John Kerry - 2% chance
11. 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.

Comments

[Hemingway]

Thanks for the highly worthwhile analysis with some thought-provoking conclusions put forth. Obviously, every Dem voter will have in mind a different set of odds, but you've elucidated many of the key factors.

My only major disagreement would be Wesley Clarke, as he is arguably the best placed to benefit if the party faithful's disapproval of the Iraq war remains their #1 issue a year from now. Should Bush and Co. opt for the same or even higher level of troops, then Clarke's military credentials and strong record of speaking out against the war will see him move up the ladder.

Difficult to challenge assessment that Hillary Clinton is the front-runner, but her disapproval rating provides a big target for all other candidates to snipe at. John Edwards seems well placed to capitalize when Hillary hits a rough patch, but it's possible his performance in the 2004 debate against Dick Cheney will spook a lot of "pragmatic" voters. We expected a sharp court lawyer to cream Cheney, but Edwards spent too much time repeating Kerry campaign talking points rather than exposing the blatant fallacies in many Cheney comments.

John Kerry might be one of the greatest Presidents we never had, but I fear your 2% rating is bang on. It's totally unfair, yet his botched joke combined with considerable slime still hanging around from that swiftboating attack are insurmountable.

[The Mexican]

I concur with Hemingway--perhaps a reference to an amazing literary giant? Your analysis is well-ruminated. I do believe this will catch on and pick up, because so many Dems, centrists, independents, progressives, borderline conservatives, etc. are clamoring for the next president.

[Hemingway]

Thank you kindly, The Mexican. And yes, you've picked my reference to the Nobel Prize winner. What's long-forgotten is that, as a journalist, Hemingway often wrote powerful pieces against America's politicians sending our troops into harm's way. During WWII, he bitterly attacked the Allied Commanders for throwing US soldiers into a senseless slaughter in the Battle for Hurtgen Forest, which is the central theme of his novel, "Across the River and into the Trees". Hemingway despised most WWII correspondents, who were the predecessors of Fox News' Iraq War cheerleaders, calling them out as "the scummiest scum". What a perfect descriptor for O'Reilly, Cavuto and their ilk!

[The Mexican]

Indeed, one of his most famous short stories entitled "Soldier's Home" was a bold attempt to show the dehumanization of soldiers by war and in society.

[Michel]

Basing myself on this previous post of yours:
http://thebluestate.typepad.com/my_weblog/2006/11/favorability_ra.html

I think Obama is underestimated in your analysis. He's behind in that post by 4%, but notice just how many people don't know about him! If you divide his favorable by his unfavorable, he wins easy. He just needs more exposure.

I brought up his name with my mother last week, and she said "Obama who?" When I tried to explain, she was like "oh, yeah, I remember he was on the news a bit during the 2004 elections."

[George]

I'll refrain from saying that Al Gore is the best candidate by far. And that Obama should be the VP on the dem ticket.

Instead i will say that I'm very interested as well to see what Wes Clark can do. He's exactly the kind of guy who can bring in the swing voters.

Our best 5 combos are:
Gore/Obama
Clark/obama
Obama/Clark
Gore/Clark
Clark/Edwards

[isbister]

Obama and Gore aren't running. If they do then Obama as no chance and Gore will probably take the nomination.

Look who was running in '04 and what happened. The Democrats chose the most well rounded candidate, leaning towards foreign policy experience, that had the possibility of winning. This feeling will only be amplified by events facing the candidates in '08. However in '08, unlike '04, you've got at least four candidates with the name recognition and money. It will be just about impossible for the also rans to break through.

The anti-Hillary is coming from the left of her and will probably win the nomination. She's got her problems with Iraq and her swing back to being a Goldwater girl. Can anyone tell me how will Hillary be received on the issue of healthare (one of the biggest issues in the minds of '08 voters)? Deserved or not, her name is associated with "horrible plan" in the mind of most Americans.

Clark may not run if Hillary does. If he does run, he and Edwards face most of the same problems they did in 04. Clark's problem wasn't just his late entry, it was also that he had never been elected to an office and his lack of domestic policy credentials took a lot away from his foreign policy credentials. He is also against withdrawing troops from Iraq which is not in tune with the primary voters. Edwards is the reverse. He is very weak on foreign policy and was parroting Kerry's talking points because he was closer to Lieberman on the Iraq than he was Kerry... although I believe he came to Kerry's position at some point during the campaign (watch for the Iraq study group to come out with something like Kerry's '04 position cobined with the Kerry/Feingold position now and with a little of other plans sprinkled in to avoid an exact copy...although with Kerry hitting his low poit and Feingold dropping out of '08, they may not even feel the need to disguise much).

The major issues for '08 will be Iraq/al Qeada/Afghanistan and healthcare (the Congress will be able to give a little relief to the system but Bush won't allow anything near the needed major fix to get through) with social security fears mixed in (unless the Dems in Congress can do something to slow or even eliminate those fears).

[Hemingway]

Muchas Gracias to The Mexican for alerting me to "Soldier's Home" which I'll certainly be checking out. Thanks also to ibister for your cogent points about Clark's drawbacks, to which I could add the following.

1. In '04 his candidacy was endorsed by Representatives Jefferson (of $90,000 in the freezer fame) and Rangel (of lets re-institute the Draft fame). That's putting way too much lead in his saddlebags.

2. In '04 Clark was also endorsed by former Senator George McGovern (The Loser in Nixon's 1972 landslide fame). Of course, McGovern's position on immediate redeployment out of Vietnam (after 8 years in that quagmire) was totally vindicated, but only an old-fart Vietnam Vet like me would care about that.

3. Clarke is a decorated Vietnam Veteran who was awarded the Purple Heart. What perfect credentials for Swiftboat ads to denigrate him and for Republicans to mock him at their Convention by wearing band-aids!

4. Raised a Baptist, but converted to Catholic, his wife's religion, when in his 20's. Easy mark for being labelled a flip-flopper by all those "Fundies" who still passionately care about the Reformation and the Counter-Reformation.

Having said that, I'd reckon the Repubs, Fox News and their talk-radio running dogs have already prepared analogous lengthy lists for savage character assassinations of whomever runs on the Democratic Presidential ticket.

[Hemingway]

P.S. Apoogies that I keep adding and "e" to Clark. One of my best buddies spells his name that way, and I can't shake the habit!!LOL

[Hemingway]

Sheesh! Apologies!

[Rich]

I don't see the nominee in the field. If Bush does not reverse course on Iraq and get us out before the election (which seems very unlikely), then Iraq will drive the nomination process. Someone who wants to run needs to speak the truth: in the end we will leave the Iraqis to their own mess. Every day we delay represents more lives, American and Iraqi, sacrificed for vanity's sake. The person with a national profile and who, with credibility, says we must leave as soon as we can pack up, will get the nomination.
Then the nation will get a real choice in the general election.
If we, as Democrats, don't present the real choice by having nominee with a mushy position on this critical issue, our chances of success are not high. Our psuedo hawk candidate will lose to a real Republican hawk.
Almost no Democrat in the race can say this with credibilty because most of them voted for the war.
He or she who can, and does say it, will have the support to be nominated.

[Administrator: Todd]

Thanks everyone for their well-thought out points on this matter. I guess by popular demand, I will be writing another one next week.

Here are a few points of my own:

- About Wesley Clark: Yeah, he is a good guy -- one of my favorite, might I add. The problem with him, electorally speaking, is his inability to this day to effectively court female voters. He had a problem with this in December of '03. His advisers told him to wear more sweaters and speak more about health care. As you might have already concluded, this didn't work. He is very popular in Oklahoma, Kansas and Arkansas. Unfortunately, none of those places will have early primaries. If I were him, I would form an exploratory committee within weeks and spend the next year traveling to and from Iowa, Nevada and New Hampshire. He needs to get a move on if he is going to have any chance. It would also give him an opportunity to improve his Q&A skills.

- I don't want Hillary either (as of this moment). But she is still the odds on favorite. When you have that much money, it makes a big difference, regardless of what you stand for. Candidates opposing her will need to expose her failures (subjectively speaking) on health care. This tactic would erode her support among single females, which to this day is her strongest demographic.

- I just want to make one more thing clear. I don't want to make it sound like I am endorsing Obama. He has his drawbacks, such as his reluctance to take a stand on a number of issues. The Democratic base is comprised of so many single-issue voters (according to most pollsters). If he can't elaborate on his positions, he will not be respected. Hillary has the same problem. She tries to please everybody, and most voters are too smart for that. For that very reason, I put Edwards slightly ahead of Obama.

[Hemingway]

'Tis great to hear that you'll continue with your compelling critique of the potential candidates. This has already generated a lot of interesting points for consideration, and my aim is to be well prepared by the time the declared candidates commence their debates.

[Truth789]

Wesley Clark is by far the best choice for President and I am disappointed and upset that the media isn't doing more to cover him.