Right now we have some interesting candidacies and polling results for the 2008 election. Clinton and Obama polling well is interesting, for example. Non “mainstream” Republicans like Giuliani leading the pack is interesting.
It’s obviously early, but that’s what I want to ask about.
In past presidential races, who was hot at this point, and who came on strong in the end? I’ve seen lots of references to how Bill Clinton was barely an afterthought early in the '92 race, for example. Do you see anything about the current race that makes you think it will echo any particular previous race–say, because of general electoral sentiment or something about the candidates or something about the world situation? Is there anything unique or unusual about the '08 race?
I think that much of the lead of the non-mainstream candidates is due to the fact that the mainstream candidates split the vote. There are perhaps 20% of the voters who would vote for Clinton simply because she is a woman. The remaining 80% of the votes are distributed among all of the candidates, including Hilary. Once the fringe candidates are eliminated during the early primaries that benefit disappears.
The same with Giuliani. If you’re a pro-choice Republican who is not opposed to gay marriage, where you gonna go? When the religious right can put all their chips on one candidate, Rudy will be gone, and that will happen long before the convention.
Based on the reading I’m doing, Tom Harkin won the Iowa primary and Paul Tsongas won New Hampshire. But I don’t know what the polls said in general, or who was considered the one or ones to beat at this point in the race.
IIRC, at this point, so soon after the Gulf War, Poppy Bush was assumed to have a second term locked up, and that may have kept some candidates from entering (I don’t think Cuomo was serious about doing all that hard work anyway, and certainly neither was Patricia Schroeder). Tsongas got the most press fawning, at least around here, especially after his book about surviving cancer.
Yeah, that’s my memory, too. By the time Bush Sr’s popularity started plummeting, Clinton was already riding high.
One other big difference this time around is that there is no sitting president or vice president running. On the GOP side, if Arnold were eligible, you can be sure he’d be running. The CA governor is often a prime candidate.
Well there’s this interesting sketch from SNL, performed in November '91 when Bush41’s approval ratings were sufficiently high that he looked unbeatable in 1992. The Democratic contenders portrayed are Bill Bradley, Dick Gephardt, Lloyd Bentsen, Tipper Gore (representing her husband Al) and Mario Cuomo.
This election is atypical since there have only been two previous Presidential elections in the last hundred years in which there has not been an incumbent President or Vice President running. This lack of incumbents makes this election “wide open” and has probably caused more potential candidates to step forward.
My own WAG from reading the headlines of the last two weeks is that the Republicans are most scared of Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, and Barak Obama, since they’re the early targets of the right-wing smear machine.
And that, of course, has absolutely nothing to do with the OP. And the fact that those 3 are the front runners might have just a tiny bit to do with why Repulicans are “most scared” of them, if they are in fact “most scared” of them. Frankly, I think most Republicans would absolutely loooooove to have the Dems pick Edwards or Obama. If I were a Republican, they are who I would want to run against. No so much Hillary, as I think she has a chance of winning in the general.
It’s a perspective on the presidential race, which is what the title of the OP asked for.
And while I can understand the front-runner theory for Hillary and Obama (shouldn’t that be “Hillary and Barak”?), I’m not sure if it applies to Edwards – outside of the internet, I don’t think he’s on most folks’ 2008 radar yet.
Arguably, but just saying “Clinton” invites momentary confusion with her husband. I suppose calling her “Rodham-Clinton” would be a valid compromise, but “Hillary” will suffice.
I think the most interesting subplot in this election could be the Democrats retaking, or at least possibly retaking, some of the Western states that have been solidly Republican in recent elections. That’d end the whole “Republicans have the heartland, Democrats have the coasts” thing.
Oh yeah, and the chance that this election could give us the first female, black or Latino president or vice president.
That deserves a moment of thought. Traditionally, 2-term administrations have virtually always led to the VP getting nominated for the top job, in the hopes that the good times will continue.
But I can’t come up with *any * other time, ever, when association with a 2-term administration has been disqualifying. *No * member of the Bush team, unless you count McCain, is considering it, or even being mentioned as a serious possibility. That’s a historic first.