2008 President

When 2008 began, it was impossible to find a nonpartisan analyst who did not project a big year for the Democrats. George W. Bush barely scaled 30 percent in the polls, the Iraq War was deeply unpopular and the economy was weakening. Moreover, both of the top Democrats, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, appeared to have substantial advantages over a deeply divided and often unimpressive Republican presidential field. The Democrats, we all said, would clearly have to try hard to waste this opportunity. Well, they are trying very hard to do just that, as it turns out. And the party’s history of losing competitive elections in the modern era suggests they have the experience to possibly do it again. The near-tie that exists between Clinton and Obama in delegates and popular votes is leading to a prolonged brawl that inevitably will become more negative and divisive. The seven-week campaign for Pennsylvania, which votes on April 22nd, will try the patience of Democrats who hope for victory in November. The lesson of Hillary Clinton’s comeback in Ohio and Texas on March 4th is that negative attacks work. Obama calls it the “kitchen sink” strategy, but the assaults on Obama–for his ties

While the Crystal Ball continues to process the results of this week’s primaries, we are happy to welcome back Dr. Alan Abramowitz for another guest column this week. Alan is one of the most distinguished and best known political scientists in the United States today, and he has a rare talent for distilling data into appealing, fascinating accounts about American politics. The Alben W. Barkley Professor of Political Science at Emory University, Alan is the author of Voice of the People: Elections and Voting Behavior in the United States (2004, McGraw-Hill). –Larry J. Sabato, U.Va. Center for Politics A lot of Republicans are unhappy with their party this year. Some conservative Republicans, following the earlier lead of talk show hosts such as Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, have been threatening to sit out the November election or vote for a third party candidate because they don’t consider their party’s presidential nominee, John McCain, to be sufficiently conservative. Since emerging as the clear frontrunner for the Republican nomination on Super Tuesday, Mr. McCain has been working hard to win the support of conservatives by stressing his hawkish views on Iraq and his conservative positions on social issues such as abortion. In

Almost a year ago, the Crystal Ball took a first crack at listing the vice presidential possibilities in both parties (LINK). The list has held up surprisingly well. But the justifications for various candidacies have changed, and now that we know John McCain will make the choice, it’s time for reconsideration. (We’ll await the unofficial crowning of the Democratic nominee to play this game on the Democratic side, unless Democrats keep the game tied through the spring. Our discipline can only last so long.) Let’s start by revising and extending our earlier remarks, and asking the most important question. Ideally, what does a presidential candidate need in a VP ticket-mate? Here are the most important elements, and a second-banana nominee ought to meet most of these criteria: The Veep should be relatively scandal-free, and cause no major problems at selection time and throughout the campaign. It’s the Hippocratic Oath for VP candidates: First, do no harm. The Veep ought to be able to carry his or her home state, or at least carry another sizeable state if he or she cannot win home state backing. If the person can’t even do that, why in the world would you want that

As the closely fought Democratic presidential contest between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama moves deeper and deeper into the primary season, there is a growing sentiment that the nomination should go to the candidate that ultimately wins the popular vote. Fair enough. Ever since the current primary-dominated era of nominations began in the 1970s, every Democratic and Republican nomination has gone to the candidate who received the most votes in the presidential primaries. The last nominee who was not his party’s top primary vote-getter was Democrat George McGovern in 1972. And that was the last election in which less than half the states held primaries. In recent decades, the aggregate nationwide vote has been won in decisive fashion by the ultimate nominee. But so far this year, that has not been the case with Clinton and Obama. There are different ways to count the Democratic popular vote. And while Obama comes out of the Feb. 19 voting leading in all of them, Clinton could still vault on top with a succession of strong showings in the big primary states that vote directly ahead. Limit the tally to sanctioned Democratic primaries, and Obama presently enjoys a lead of more than 700,000

Dr. Alan Abramowitz is one of the most distinguished and best known political scientists in the United States today. He has a rare talent for distilling data into appealing, fascinating accounts about American politics, as you will see in his guest column for the Crystal Ball today. Alan is the Alben W. Barkley Professor of Political Science at Emory University and the author of Voice of the People: Elections and Voting Behavior in the United States (2004, McGraw-Hill). –Larry J. Sabato, U.Va. Center for Politics There is a large enthusiasm gap between Democratic and Republican voters in this year’s presidential campaign. The gap is evident in polling data, crowds at campaign rallies, turnout in primary elections, and campaign contributions. In a January 10-13 Gallup Poll, for example, 74 percent of Democratic voters said that they were “more enthusiastic than usual” about voting this year compared with only 44 percent of Republican voters. Forty-eight percent of Republican voters said that they were “less enthusiastic than usual” about voting this year compared with only 15 percent of Democratic voters. The Democratic advantage has also been evident in turnout in presidential primaries. On February 5th, Super Tuesday, almost 15 million voters participated in

Now be honest. Wasn’t Tuesday evening one of the most exciting nights ever in American politics? It had more drama and twists than many presidential general elections. The onrush of results and exit polls in twenty-four states–and let’s not forget about American Samoa–was dizzying and exhilarating. Our readers, mainly political junkies, already know the basics. To refresh your memory, in case you are in the same kind of sleepless fog and hoarse stupor that we are, please see the two accompanying maps, one for the Democrats and one for the Republicans, showing which candidates won which states. The number appearing within the boundaries of each Super Tuesday state is the percentage of the vote for the winning candidate. In a future essay, once a little time has passed, we will return to the events of this remarkable day to evaluate further the nation’s first truly national primary. True, in 1988 the first Super Tuesday included twenty states, but fourteen of them were in the South and Border-South region. By comparison, 2008’s Super Duper Tuesday had a selection of states from every region. We now know that, both parties taken together, the big winner of Super Tuesday was John McCain. It

Ready or not, here it comes… Super-Duper Tuesday, Tsunami Tuesday, Monster Tuesday, or whatever name one chooses to call it. The huge, historic nationwide vote Feb. 5 is at last at hand. Two dozen states from Massachusetts to California will vote next Tuesday, electing more than 40 percent of all Democratic and Republican delegates in 2008. The only other single-day event that has ever come close to this size during the presidential nominating process came on March 8, 1988, when the first full-blown Super Tuesday featured 16 primaries, actually one more than is scheduled next Tuesday. But that one-day votefest 20 years ago was a Southern-oriented event, rounded out by a handful of primaries in the Northeast and a smattering of low-visibility caucuses in the West. This year’s Super Tuesday, by contrast, is truly a nationwide event, the largest in scope ever held outside the November general election. It is vast and varied in virtually every way. Each region of the country is well represented. Red and blue states abound. Racial diversity is accented. Voter enthusiasm has rarely been higher, and turnout should be huge. The half of the country that will vote Feb. 5 includes nearly 80 million registered

Professor Alan Abramowitz of Emory University, a long-time friend of the Crystal Ball, sent us the following table, summarizing the national polls in January 2008. Alan writes: “At this point, John McCain is the only Republican candidate who appears to have a realistic chance of defeating either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. McCain does dramatically better against both Democrats than any other Republican, and of course much better than a generic Republican. All of the other Republican candidates lose badly to Clinton and even more badly to Obama. Whether McCain can maintain his broad appeal while also trying to appeal to the conservative base of the GOP in the remaining primaries remains to be seen.” Match-Up Average Result (N) Generic D vs. Generic R +16.6 Generic D (2) Clinton vs. McCain -1.1 Clinton (+1.1 McCain) (6) Clinton vs. Romney +13.2 Clinton (5) Clinton vs. Huckabee +11.7 Clinton (6) Clinton vs. Giuliani +10.8 Clinton (6) Obama vs. McCain -1.0 Obama (+1.0 McCain) (6) Obama vs. Romney +19.0 Obama (5) Obama vs. Huckabee +16.5 Obama (6) Obama vs. Giuliani +18.4 Obama (5) Clinton Average +8.6 Obama Average +13.2 McCain Average +1.0 Romney Average -16.1 Huckabee Average -14.1 Giuliani Average -14.6 Source: Pollingreport.com,

Now that Iowa, Wyoming, New Hampshire, Michigan, Nevada, and South Carolina have voted, at least in one party, one thing is perfectly clear: While the identities of the two major-party nominees are not yet certain, the ranks on both sides have thinned dramatically and the finalists have emerged. For the Democrats, the nominee will either be Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, in that order of probability, and for the Republicans, John McCain or Mitt Romney, with Rudy Giuliani a longshot possibility should he win Florida on January 29th. Notice that we said “win”, not second place, for Giuliani. Unquestioned victory in the Sunshine State is now Rudy’s only chance to be taken seriously since he has done miserably in the first five contests and has chosen to campaign almost exclusively of late in Florida. On the Democratic side, Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada have all been highly competitive. Obama won the Hawkeye State by +8, and Clinton won the Granite State by +3 and the Silver State by +6. Obama is favored in South Carolina and he needs the victory on Saturday badly to keep Clinton from winning three in a row. Should Clinton capitalize on the electorate’s newfound focus

One of the basic facts of American politics is that citizens will turn out to vote when they feel they have something to vote for. That was the case in 2004, when a record 122 million ballots were cast in an election that was essentially a referendum on the presidency of George W. Bush. And that has been the case again so far this year, as the nation begins the process of selecting a successor to one of its most controversial presidents ever. Already turnout records (measured here in terms of actual votes cast) have been smashed in Iowa and New Hampshire, most spectacularly by the Democrats but also by the Republicans as well. And it is likely that the all-time high for a primary season of 35 million votes cast, set back in 1988, will be surpassed this year by millions and millions of votes. Like 1988, this year features an open presidential race with no incumbent on the ballot. Like 1988, both parties have different winners emerging from Iowa and New Hampshire. And like 1988, there is a huge Super Tuesday votefest that lies dead ahead early in the nominating process. But there is a significant difference this

First, we at the Crystal Ball want to get one thing straight with our readers. We are for change. We have worked for change our whole lives. We are truly change agents. And we haven’t just talked about change, we’ve accomplished change–as long as you consider publishing books and articles about change to be accomplishments (doubtful, but we’re entitled to make our case). Even better, being long in the tooth, we’re experienced in bringing about change, so we possess the unbeatable dynamic duo of experience and change. Ah, we feel better. We’re in tune with the spirit of the season. Those of you who are for the status quo need to think about what we have just said. Your day is over. You’re on the “Out” list for 2008. Please don’t cry, although tearing up could help you. Now let’s move to the business of one of the most exciting weeks in politics ever. We’ve registered our objections to the current Iowa-New Hampshire system on several occasions, including in this space last week [Read more], and we want to stress again that only about 5 percent of the voters in the United States have had a chance to weigh in

It may not be that unusual for a large state to produce a pair of major presidential candidates within a generation, but for a small town to do so is astounding. That is the case with Hope, Arkansas, which is the birthplace of two modern-day White House aspirants–Bill Clinton and Mike Huckabee. Clinton, of course, was elected president in the 1990s. Huckabee has the same goal this year, with the Iowa caucuses today (Jan. 3) a critical opening test. Hope would appear an unlikely place to launch two presidential candidates. It lies quietly along Interstate 30 between Little Rock and Texarkana, has a population of barely 10,000, and merits nary a mention in the American Automobile Association (AAA) guidebook of places to visit in Arkansas. Probably Hope’s most memorable feature is its old train depot, featured prominently in a 1992 Bill Clinton campaign video. And if one listens to Clinton and Huckabee, each was born on the wrong side of the tracks. Yet both were able to transcend their modest beginnings, climb the political ladder, and prepare for the national stage by showing themselves to be formidable vote-getters in Arkansas. To be sure, there are some clear differences between Hope’s

If you’re from Iowa, maybe you should just stop reading right now. I don’t want to spoil your big day. I have nothing against the Hawkeye State. To the contrary, my visits there have invariably been pleasant, and my dealings with colleagues and journalists based in Iowa have been delightful. It’s just that (1) the caucuses this year are way too early; (2) the caucuses and the state are unrepresentative of the broader electorate; and (3) the rules of the caucuses raise real questions about fairness. The Timing. Have you met anyone who thinks it’s a good idea to start the process two days after New Year’s, with campaigning having peaked over the Christmas holidays? Let’s remember why this has happened: Iowa and New Hampshire absolutely insisted upon going first, as always. Isn’t that a little bit greedy? Aren’t there 48 other equal states? Even if you buy their arguments about small states being better as the initial “screening committees” for White House contenders, there are twenty other states with just a few electoral votes. Any small state would take the lead-off post seriously. Yet Iowa and New Hampshire almost pushed the presidential selection process into early December 2007–an absurdity

“It’s always easier the second time around,” goes the lyrics of the old song. But while that may be true in love and romance, it is certainly not the case in presidential politics. And that is not good news for Republican John McCain and Democrat John Edwards (or for that matter, Democrats Joe Biden and Dennis Kucinich) who are making second tries for the White House in 2008 after failing to win their party’s nomination on their first attempts. To be sure, there are some advantages in having run a national campaign before, even an unsuccessful one. There is a realistic sense of all that is required — from fundraising and dealing with the media to the emotional and physical adjustment to life on the road, with the frequent forays required to the hamlets of Iowa and New Hampshire. Yet those who win their party’s nomination on the second (or third) try are far fewer than those who go 0 for 2. And the quintet of candidates who have succeeded under such circumstances since World War II shared a common characteristic that neither McCain, Edwards, nor the others possess this time. Virtually all of the successful “late bloomers” significantly embellished

This week, the Crystal Ball publishes another installment in our intermittent series of observations on the 2008 campaign and the politics of the day. We offer these musings as a supplement to our usual essays focusing on one subject, which will still appear regularly. Jefferson aficionados will find the title familiar, and they know he penned just one book in his lifetime, Notes on the State of Virginia. As a salute to the man from Monticello, here are a few more modern tidbits, including some thoughts on the 2008 contest to pick Jefferson’s White House successor. Mike Huckabee, Media Favorite Partisan critics of the news media insist that the media are fatally biased in one direction or the other, and certainly there are many examples of bias from all ideological directions. Yet the critique is usually overdone. For example, the “liberal Democratic media” never hesitate to embrace a certain type of Republican–the unorthodox, underdog GOP candidate who is friendly and accessible to reporters. Every part of the description is important. Journalists like to see the candidate tilting at a few windmills; they want to know he’s fighting against the odds; and most of all, they want to find a smiling,