Joe Biden ⇑ Becoming one of the more interesting stories of the campaign. Every debate seems to garner him a wee bit more in the polls, and enough time has passed since his infamous “articulate and clean” comment. If public opinion really starts to shift wildly, Biden could benefit, but he’s only topped 5% in an early state poll once.
Hillary Clinton ⇔ Like the ’87 Celtics, Clinton is staying with a good game plan through thick and thin. Her little Sopranos online stunt was masterful, and not a day goes by when she doesn’t get a good endorsement. The irony in receiving Villagarosa’s backing is rich. However, Obama outraised her — is this a trend?
Chris Dodd ⇓ He’d love to have Biden’s numbers (or money), much less top-tier stuff. Jim Gilmore is showing you the future, Chris…
John Edwards ⇓ First, his fundraising goes under $10 million for the second quarter, then he gets caught telling Hillary that they need “we should try to have a more serious and a smaller group” after a debate on a live mike. He has just turned away from “second choice” votes in later primaries as lower candidates drop out, and turned sharply on Dennis Kucinich, his useful ally 4 years ago in Iowa.
Mike Gravel ⇔ He’s out then in at the Human Rights Campaign debate. But what does it add? He’s got a great act, but it’s starting to wear thin. Anything else up your sleeve, Senator?
Dennis Kucinich ⇑ Few things help a fringe candidate better than deserved righteous indignation, this week served on a platter in response to Edwards’ scheming. This is reminiscent of Kucinich’s best moments, but still doesn’t fix his little “primary problem” back in Ohio.
Barack Obama ⇑ Gets to be the grown-up in the debate fracas, and comes out of a sweet spot in the cycle, with two forums focusing heavily on African-American issues. New numbers from the most recent quarter give him the most cash. Can that cash translate into renewed enthusiasm?
Bill Richardson ⇔ New month, same story. Bad in the debate, good on the trail, great at the polls. Richardson is starting to pull even with Edwards on the money race, and in some national and state polling. Not escaping Tier II as much as bringing someone else down to join him.
Although its been a much slower news cycle with less focus on the Presidential debate I feel that more and more John Edwards is becoming the John McCain of the Democrats, losing money and momentum. Also if he keeps making gaffes like that he won’t last.
<
p>
I also agree on Bidens slight rise, and disagreed with those that wrote him off, he is a serious candidate and debater and occupies the vital center of the party, his biggest problem is that Dodd occupies essentially the same niche and will need to go.
<
p>
Kucinich and Gravel also occupy the same niche and in my view there should be only be room for one kook so expect one of these guys to drop out, probably Kucinich due to the primary concerns back home, money issues, and Gravel being the fresh left wing extremist of this cycle.
<
p>
Obama is running a quiet campaign, gradually outraising Hillary (surprised that gained little attention) while Hillary is quietly getting more endorsements. If 2004 is any indication money is far more important than endorsements (Dean had the endorsements but eventually got out funded by Kerry).
<
p>
Richardson has had a quiet month, the lack of any media attention will actually be beneficial as he bombed on Meet the Press last month and had an unfavorable New York Times article written on him. I think this time will allow him to prepare to take Edwards place, although the media would love to make this a two person race.
<
p>
Any analysis on the Republicans? Its important to know where the GOP stands as well.
I’ve been a bit surprised about Biden through this whole campaign. I like him in the debates, and it’s interesting to see himself getting a little more oxygen. However, if he does at all threaten to become a player, his allegiance to credit card companies would finish him off right quick.
<
p>
As for the GOP, I’m not as familiar with all the ins and outs. among the minor candidates. Obviously, McCain is struggling, but I’m not as up-to-date about Romney v Giuliani, or breakthrough potential for Huckabee or T Thompson.
Huckabee seems like the candidate to break through, but he’s been out raised by Brownback like 3 to 1, which is surprising.
<
p>
Tommy Thompson’s not going anywhere higher. He’s extremely good on health and wellness issues, but on everything else he comes off as clueless.
Great commentary on the campaign. With the 2008 election setting new standards of early announcements, heavy fundraising, and number of people jumping in the race, it’s going to be interesting to see how the conventional wisdom of presidential campaigns holds up in this one. Can an early front-winner win, if it’s THIS early? Is leading in the money race as significant if even more candidates are going to be at the stratospheric fundraising levels? How will the more progressive candidates fare with so many candidates in the race? It’s going to be an interesting race to watch!
As you say, there’s such a high interest level this far out, I have to wonder about politics fatigue in the long run. I wouldn’t want to be an Iowan or New Hampshirite given what they’re going to going through over the next 7 or so months. A stronger desire to avoid this stifling attention could hopefully prove to be the strongest impetus toward a sane primary schedule we could get.
Those on the descent:
<
p>
McCain-drastically spiraling from presumptive frontrunner mode to withdraw imminent mode. Certainly the mistakes will be talked about for awhile but the close ties to Bush on Iraq alienated McCain from the moderates and independents that made him so attractive while the close ties to Bush on immigration alienated from the right wing base of the GOP. The pandering to Falwell was seen as just that, pandering, and it did not convince McCain skeptics and only alienated his supporters. Essentially being the stubborn bastard that he is like for him to stake his future on a surprise win or strong 2nd in NH so he can be the comeback kid of this cycle, the model to follow now is Clinton 92.
<
p>
Romney-Should be ascending due to the McCain collapse but Rudy is surprisingly holding off on the plummeting numbers the CW expected when conservatives found out how far from the base he is. Also lots of bad press with flip flopping, the dog, more dirt on the Big Dig, etc. only hurt him. Still doing good with the money and leading in IA and NH polls, but looks like he could be hurt most by a Thompson entry
<
p>
Mike Huckabee-Has said needs a least a top three finish in IA straw poll, currently that does not look likely, as long as Brownback is in the race the evangelical vote will be split, Brownbacks stealing his money and he has shown a surprising lack of depth on security and foreign policy issues, at this point is he just running for VP?
<
p>
Tommy Thompson-Wins the most likely to withdraw next award as his campaign is going nowhere fast, looks ugly on the debate stage, barely gets any points in, and is not doing well in his de facto backyard of Iowa. Like Huckabee will let the straw poll make the decision for him
<
p>
Duncan Hunter-Nobody knows who he is, good debate performances but like Biden over on the Dems, debate performances dont translate to money, poll numbers, or buzz since no one but political junkies is even watching the debates at this point, also rumors are swirling about an FBI investigation involving military contracts
<
p>
Stuck in Neutral-
<
p>
Rudy-His numbers have not gone down as expected but they are not going up either, has a good 1/3 of the GOP behind him nationally which gives him a good plurality, but is not doing as well in the early state polls, and if the anti-Rudy forces go behind one man (perhaps Fred Thompson) than he could be in a lot of trouble, still the man to beat, and he benefits most from a McCain withdrawl
<
p>
Brownback-Not really catching fire with the base but he is also not on fire yet either might stay past Iowa due to surprising amounts of campaign cash
<
p>
On the Ascent-
<
p>
Fred Thompson-As long as people keep talking him up it looks more and more likely he’ll jump in, yet there is also still a good chance he won’t considering all the good buzz he is getting Im surprised he isnt jumping in, since being an official candidate is a lot more advantageous than still being in exploratory mode, perhaps its the state polls showing him in fourth that bother him? Defference to his old friend Mccain? Or perhaps he just doesnt want this thing, either way as long as he remains an unknown quantity his stock his sure to rise, the real test is how good his IPO will be
<
p>
Ron Paul-Darling of the internet and fringe groups, making a lot of money, is doing a lot of television, and could emerge as the dark horse candidate especially in libertarian NH, no he wont win but could do surprisingly well and force an anti-war, pro-gold, anti-any federal program agenda down the throats of the party
<
p>
Tom tancredo-Any day the field is shortened is a good day for tancredo since it means his anti-immigrant shtick can get more airtime, look for him to hang around as long as they are debates or until he runs for Senate
Can any of these guys win? I know the Republican slate is even sorrier, but, Jeez Louise, this is a pretty paltry bunch. No FDR or HST or JFK or WJC here. Just a bunch of meaningless initials. The whole situation is appalling.
Took a bit of time to even figure out who “WJC” is…never heard him referred to that way. In any case, in July 1999 Bill Clinton wasn’t “WJC” but rather a small-time governor hilariously thinking he had a chance against Governor Harkin, Senators Kerrey or Tsongas, or the exciting possibility of Governor Cuomo jumping in.
<
p>
And I do expect our nominee to win, as you note the Republican slate is really sorry. While Bill Richardson is no Howard Dean in my book, I’m quite happy with the concept of a President Richardson, Edwards, Clinton, Biden, etc. After four or eight years in the White House, I imagine many of these candidates will be known as WBB, HRC (which we already know), or JRE.
I would agree that with Dubya stubbornly refusing to change the course in Iraq, on immigration, and with the socially liberal* GOP frontrunners I cannot concieve of a Republican victory. That said if current polls hold, which I am confident they wont but they might, HRC might win the nomination and she will certainly lose the general election because the entire right wing will unite behind one of those losers because they hate her so much. Other than that 2008 could be a great election, and if we play our cards right it could even be a realigning election.
<
p>
*compared to the theocratic base
The thing that causes consternation is that, on paper, HRC would be my choice because of her actual positions. But oh! the baggage. I suppose that it is not that big a deal because my vote will have exactly zero impact on the choice of nominee, so we will wait and see who emerges.
At least by current polling, that entity is shrinking too.
<
p>
As I’ve remarked*, Hillary will unite the core conservatives, but I think her recent appearances have tended to deflate some of the negative buzz around her.
*Warning to CentralMassDad: do not click that link.
I can’t tell you how many people who had historically been extremely cool (and even opposed) to her candidacy have told me that, after seeing her in the last debate, that she is close to sealing the deal, that they were bowled over by her command of issues, her forthright approach, and her ability to think on her feet. Many of these same people had been leaning toward Obama just an anti-HRC grounds, but that support is not very soft. And I was one of them.
<
p>
So, my feeling is that any day that HRC doesn’t implode she is rising, given the context of her candidacy. Obama, despite the money machine, does not inspire all that much confidence when you actually listen to him on the issues.
<
p>
My money says the ticket looks like this, Clinton/Obama, and it can’t be beat.