Man, this is a tough race to call.
First off, you have to give the Democrats the natural advantage, because Bush and the Republicans in Congress have totally discredited themselves.
That said, the Democrats are working damned hard to discredit themselves now that they control Congress, and they may overtake the Republicans in this regard by the time the election rolls around. I can’t believe how freaking incompetent they’ve been. Congressional approval has dropped 10 points since the Republicans lost power, and they were booted out because the people didn’t like them. Amazing. All the Democrats had to do was follow through with their ‘good government’ reforms and act like adults, and they’d be in the driver’s seat now. Instead, they keep shooting themselves in the foot. They’re angering both their own base, moderates, and Republicans. This is not an easy feat, but they’re doing it.
So at this point, Democrats have the advantage in the ‘who do you trust’ department, but it’s rapidly eroding.
Then there are the wild cards: Iraq, and a 3rd party candidacy. If Iraq starts to look successful, or even as thought it’s getting better, it’s going to defuse that issue to some degree. Already, public support for the war has climbed 10 percentage points in the past few months (still well below 50%, though). Or, the Democrats could be successful in forcing a rapid pullout, which could cause the region to erupt in flames and bite them in the ass. Or they could succeed in a pullout, and everything gets better, and Iraq stops being an electoral issue. None of this is good for the Democrats. Their smartest play would have been to make sure that the Republicans continued owning the war. But their base won’t let them do that.
A third party candidate could pull votes from one side or the other. A Bloomberg candidacy would almost certainly hurt Hillary. Having two liberal candidates from New York can’t do anything but split votes between them. And there’s still time for someone on the right to kick off a 3rd party candidacy.
Taking all that off the table, it comes down to electoral politics and the candidates themselves. If Guliani is the Republican nominee, can he carry New York for the Republicans? If he can, that’s a huge advantage. But I doubt it. And if he can’t, he’s a liability because he makes it less likely that the Republicans can lock up the south, and they need the south.
Plus, I remember all too well that Guliani was a very damaged mayor by the end of his second term. The longer you see him in action, the less you tend to like him. He’s abrasive, and like others said, he has skeletons in his closet. His best chance (really his only chance) is to successful play the ‘leadership in the face of terror’ card. Expect to see that video of him walking through the rubble in New York over and over and over again… The thing is, I’m not sure how much traction that has with voters any more. 9/11 is receding into the background as the years go by without another attack.
Mitt Romney should be a great candidate. The buzz around him started when he managed the Olympics in Salt Lake City and by all accounts did a superlative job. He’s been highly successful in business and government. He’s good looking, and speaks well. But the Mormon thing… I don’t know. I honestly don’t know if he can overcome that. Also, I think independents and Democrats (and some Republicans like me) are getting really tired of the religious right and their opposition to everything from abortion to stem cell research. His wife is into ‘alternative medicine’, seeks out holistic treatments for her multiple sclerosis. She’s a believer in ‘treatments’ like reflexology. So she’s a bit of a flake.
I think McCain is done. Too old, no natural constituency. He’s pissed off the right with his support of illegal immigration, and pissed off the left with his support of the war. He’s put himself in a corner I don’t think he can get out of.
I personally like Newt Gingrich as an idea man, but he’s not a good politician. Too abrasive, too unlikeable. Wickedly smart, though. So don’t count him out, but I think he’s a real longshot.
The only other possible candidate on the right as of today is Fred Thompson, and he’s a complete wild card. I have no idea what will happen when he formally announces, but it will be either a spectacular climb to the top of the pack or a spectacular fall. I don’t see him surviving as a middle-tier candidate with the likes of Brownback or Tancredo. He’s going for the long bomb.
On the Democrat side, you’ve got to go with either Hillary or Obama at this time. Hillary is a triangulating, professional politician who has a huge organization of professionals around her. She knows how to work her ass off. Obama has the ‘it’ factor. He’s a great speaker, he’s a fresh face, and he’s smart.
Hillary has some liabilities. Being from New York is one of them - normally it would be a ‘safe’ state, and you really want a candidate who can help carry a state that you normally wouldn’t be able to get. She’s also got high negatives, and has been known to lose her temper.
Obama’s big problem is youth and lack of experience. He’s less qualified to be President than Bush was. And he’s already shown it with some major gaffes.
Another big liability of the Democratic candidates is their wacky ‘base’. They’re farther out there than the Republican base is. And they’re militant. The danger is that to win the nomination the candidates need the base, and to get the base they’ll have to position themselves so far over on the left that the nominee will have a hell of a time clawing back to the center in the general election while remaining credible. John Kerry got nailed for exactly that - “I was against the war before I was for it. Now I’m against it again.” Trying to please everyone. The Republicans have the same problem, but I think the Democrats have it worse this year.
As of today, my best guess would be that Hillary wins the nomination and goes on to be the next President. But the error bars I’d put around that estimate are huge. Six months from now, the race could look completely different.
