2008 President

Much of the growing sense of inevitability about Hillary Clinton’s bid for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination revolves around the issue of electability. Polls show her running well these days against prospective Republican opponents, which she buttresses with references to the breadth of her own landslide Senate reelection victory last fall in New York. But that race is a story with two sides. There is no doubt that a case for “Hillary the Vote Getter” can be made with cold, hard facts. She was reelected in 2006 with 67 percent of the vote, 12 percentage points better than her first run in 2000. She won 58 of the Empire State’s 62 counties (after carrying only 15 six years earlier). And she swept every region of the state, most notably the vast Republican-oriented upstate sector, by comfortable margins. The latter is a clear demonstration, her proponents say, of her ability to make inroads in “Red America” on a wider scale in 2008. Figure 1. HILLARY THE VOTE GETTER There is no question that Hillary Clinton did much better at the ballot box in 2006 than her initial Senate run six years earlier. Then, she relied heavily on the votes from Democratic

It would not be surprising if the most important single primary in 2008 takes place in California. But don’t look for it to be the presidential primary on Super-Duper Tuesday Feb. 5. Look instead to the state primary on June 3, up to now a low-profile event that could become fraught with significance if some California Republicans succeed in getting a highly controversial proposition on the ballot. If successful, it would ensure the party’s nominee 20 or so electoral votes from California next fall, even if the GOP candidate loses the state for the fifth straight election. And if the 2008 election is as close as the last two been have been, that could be enough to keep the White House in Republican hands. The political weapon of choice for the GOP is a plan that would distribute electoral votes to congressional district winners (one per district, plus two to the statewide winner of the popular vote) instead of the winner-take-all format that nearly every state currently favors. The plan was submitted as a ballot proposal to California election officials in July by a law firm that has represented the state Republican Party. The district plan has been employed for

America has known successful political dynasties in the last generation or two–the Bushes, the Clintons, the Kennedys. Not quite on the same level are the Romneys. George Romney made an unsuccessful run for the 1968 Republican presidential nomination. His son, Mitt, is currently seeking the same goal. Like his father, he is touting himself as a successful businessman, popular big-state governor, devout Mormon and family man. But he can be forgiven if he hopes the similarities end there. For it was 40 years ago this month that Mitt Romney’s father was the victim of one of the more noteworthy “gotcha” moments of the media age, when he talked of being “brainwashed” by U.S. military and diplomats on a fact-finding visit to Vietnam. It set in play a slow motion political suicide that culminated several months later with the expiration of the Romney campaign before a single primary state had voted. The episode began innocently enough. On Aug. 31, 1967, the senior Romney–then in his third term as governor of Michigan—taped an interview for a Detroit-based news show. In the process, he undertook to explain his early support of the war still raging in Vietnam–a support that had begun to wane.

A whole generation of young Americans may be growing up with the impression that the nation’s electoral map is locked into a rough balance between the Democrats and Republicans, with their states sharply etched in shades of blue and red. It is an understandable impression. After months of campaigning and the expenditure of hundreds of millions of dollars, only three small states shifted sides from the razor close presidential election of 2000 to the high-stakes shootout of 2004. Iowa and New Mexico moved to the Republicans; New Hampshire switched to the Democrats–a trio that together offered a paltry 16 electoral votes. It was the smallest movement of states from one presidential election to another in almost a century. But the dramatic success of the Democrats in 2006 may be a harbinger that our familiar red and blue shadings are poised for a perceptible rearrangement in 2008. For not only did the Democrats run well in the party’s strongholds on the two coasts and the battleground states of the Midwest, but they made significant inroads in the Republican heartland as well. While we have a nearly 50/50 nation in the aggregate, recent elections have shown most of the country to be

The group gathered in the Chicago McCormick Place Convention Center was not the usual audience for a presidential debate. While the Democratic candidates for president may not have fully realized this as they strode onstage, it didn’t take long for the crowd to impress that fact upon them. As the candidates were introduced, it was noted that hometown Senator Barack Obama was celebrating his 46th birthday. The audience proceeded to do what seemed most natural: breaking out into song, singing a disjointed “Happy Birthday, dear Barack.” Who are these irreverent and raucous spectators? They are, of course, the Kossacks; liberal bloggers who frequent the internet site Daily Kos (named after its founder, Markos Moulitsas), and assemble annually to celebrate the successes of the “netroots” (a hybrid formed from “internet” and “grassroots”) and meet each other face to face. They pride themselves on making politics a two-way street, hence the singing of “Happy Birthday” and an abundance of shouted comments throughout the candidate forum. They call this “people powered politics” and they wager that it will change the political landscape, making it both more democratic and more Democratic. This year’s Yearly Kos convention was only the second iteration, but already they

Bill and Hillary Clinton may not be joined together at the hip, but they are connected at the base. For if the former First Lady is to win the Democratic presidential nomination next year, it most likely will be by resurrecting a coalition of voters quite similar to the one that propelled her husband to the Democratic nomination in 1992. The irony is that it is not the base of support that one would suspect two of the “best and brightest” of the baby-boom generation to fashion. Rather, the heart of the Clinton’s base is a “downscale” coalition of minorities and the elderly, the less educated and the least affluent, as well as the most partisan Democratic voters. Bill rode this coalition to the Democratic nomination in 1992. Early polling this year shows that Hillary is reassembling it. To be sure, in chasing the Democratic nomination in 1992, Bill showed strength across the demographic spectrum–as has Hillary in polling thus far this year. But the greatest strength of both is their appeal to voters who are living lives much different than the Clintons. That was evident at the very start of Bill Clinton’s presidential run in 1992. His campaign nearly

One unusual function of presidential elections is to allow us to confront our own prejudices. The 2008 contest already guarantees us more opportunities to do that than any other in American history. The nation’s performance in this regard is both ugly and inspiring. New York Governor Al Smith, the first Roman Catholic nominated by a major party for the White House, endured withering volleys of pure hate in 1928, losing even solidly Democratic states in the heavily Protestant South to Republican Herbert Hoover. But by 1960, Americans were able (barely) to get beyond their fears of “papist rule from the Vatican” to elect John F. Kennedy. Still, 80 percent of Catholics voted for JFK while 69 percent of Protestants cast a ballot for Richard M. Nixon. Religious affiliation was the single greatest predictor of an individual’s vote in that remarkable year. No other Catholic has since won the Presidency, but several candidates in both parties are affiliated with this religion–and it is highly doubtful that it will be much of an issue. Another religion will be an issue, owing to GOP candidate Mitt Romney. One of the most discouraging surprises from the 2008 campaign so far has been how virulent

Over the decades the Republican Party has secured a reputation as the orderly bunch in our (mainly) two-party system. Its members like to have a designated successor in the White House wings, someone who has worked his way up and deserves the nod. Let the Democrats roam the countryside looking for an antiestablishment maverick, under whose standard they will probably lose. The GOP, the managerial party drawn disproportionately from the organized business class, has learned the importance of a tidy succession in the corporate board room. The king is dead; long live the king; let the crown prince reign! Have we exaggerated history a bit? Of course. In major surprises, the Republicans picked insurgent Wendell Willkie in 1940 (can a Wall Street executive really qualify as an insurgent?) and “bombs-away” Barry Goldwater in 1964. Both lost rather badly, and unlike the Democrats–who repeat their mistakes with greater frequency–the Republicans learned quickly that bomb-throwing of any kind on the campaign trail is usually a ticket to oblivion. In any event, the mainly winning Republican crown-prince model is off the table for 2008, yet another unfortunate (for the GOP) by-product of a deeply unpopular President Bush and his wholly owned subsidiary–the Vietnam-without-the-jungle

The news media are a-twitter about the possibility of an all-New York race for the White House in 2008. Hillary Clinton (D) versus Rudy Giuliani (R) versus Michael Bloomberg (I) would somehow validate the Empire State (and the media’s headquarters city). After all, it’s been 64 years since New York could claim the major contenders (Democratic President Franklin Roosevelt and GOP New York Gov. Thomas E. Dewey in 1944). Since ’44, New Yorkers have been bust in the presidential process, including Dewey again in 1948, Nelson Rockefeller in 1960 and 1964, Bobby Kennedy in 1968 (only because of an assassin’s bullet), John Lindsay in 1972 and Mario Cuomo in 1992. Note to observant readers: we’re not including minor candidates here, nor do we count Eisenhower as a New Yorker in 1952 or Nixon as one in 1968. Yes, Ike’s last U.S. address before the Presidency was New York-he had served as President of Columbia University before becoming Supreme Allied Commander of NATO in Europe–but Ike was born in Texas and reared in Kansas; he was no New Yorker. Similarly, Nixon was technically a NYC resident, where he had practiced law since losing the California Governorship in 1962; still, Nixon was

Despite the breathless media reports about every jot and tittle of the Democratic contest for President, not all that much has changed in the last year. Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) has consistently been the frontrunner in national surveys, sometimes by narrow spreads and frequently by sizeable margins. So far she has weathered the entry of Senator Barack Obama (D-IL), a far more charismatic and exciting candidate, and she has held off any sizeable gains by the other two major contenders, former Senator John Edwards (D-NC) and Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico (D-NM). The main stumbling block for Clinton has been Iowa, where she continues to trail in the trial heats for the first caucus. But no one else is so well positioned to survive an initial defeat. Arguably, her strongest potential opponents, moderates Senator Evan Bayh (D-IN) and former Governor Mark Warner (D-VA), decided against running, and the other formidable possible candidate, former Vice President Al Gore, is almost certainly not going to run. The other announced Democratic candidates show little sign of breaking out of the pack. So it’s smooth sailing for Hillary, right? No one questions her intelligence, abilities, policy aptitude, and experience (hey, this would be

Sure, you’ve heard of the Iowa Caucuses, the New Hampshire Primary, and so on. But 2008’s first presidential pre-nomination contests are already underway, and have been for a long (and we’d argue, too long) time. They’re the “invisible” primaries, and for better or worse, we in the pundit class get to throw in our votes. The concept of the “invisible primary,” first advanced by journalist Arthur Hadley in 1976, has since been referenced liberally to describe the early pre-voting stages of presidential nomination campaigns. The Crystal Ball would argue that the sometimes-awkward adolescent stages of these races are actually best characterized as a series of ongoing phantom battles, in which no votes are cast, but the ups and downs of the larger war can be quantified by a variety of other metrics. This century’s invisible primaries are no longer just the much-hyped races for cash, poll support, and staff; they’re also races for now-necessary campaign accoutrements such as online networking presences. They take center stage in the national news for entire years before the first votes are cast if only because they’re all the entertainment we have! Is it healthy to be paying so much attention to these factors so

There’s no better day than Friday the 13th to venture into the occult, so your clairvoyant friends at the upstanding U.Va. Center for Politics just couldn’t resist: we had to share the latest results of our Crystal Ball gazing with you today. And what a freaky election we spy in the not-so-far-off future! Towering, larger-than-life political figures loom over the 2008 presidential landscape as we approach the nine-month mark before Iowans trudge through the snow to their precinct caucuses and kick off a mad dash for convention delegates. And while we political analysts gaze into our crystal balls each day to try to make sense of it all, the contenders gaze into their crystal mirrors each morning and see the 44th President of the United States. But the true mirror images of the spectacular race for Leader of the Free World in 2008 may not be images of each candidate, but rather each field. As expected, the lack of an incumbent president or vice president in contention for the first time since 1928* has spawned free-for-alls in both parties, not to mention limitless entertainment for political junkies. Furthermore, it’s possible that for the first time since 1928–when the Democrats nominated

Last week, tongue firmly planted in cheek, the Crystal Ball endeavored to quash all of the much-too-early talk of potential vice presidential candidates with our own extensive list of the top candidates for the number two spot on each party’s presidential ticket in 2008 (read more). Because we are still a year and more out from the election and even the VP candidate selection period, there are really scores of potential candidates who could end up on the ballot next year, and you–our astute readers–did an excellent job pointing out other options and sharing your thoughts on the Crystal Ball’s initial VP analysis. Of course, as we say at the bottom of every newsletter, “He who lives by the crystal ball ends up eating ground glass!” With March Madness behind us (congrats to all the Gators out there, and condolences to the Buckeyes, Wahoos, and the rest of the teams that didn’t make it all the way this year), the NCAA odds-makers can now turn their attention back to the presidential race–and the NIT odds-makers can focus on the vice presidential contenders. We will surely return to our VP coverage when the appropriate time comes, but for now, with sincere

If there is one thing that we at the Crystal Ball cannot countenance, it is early conjecture about possible vice presidential running-mates for the 2008 major-party tickets. The presidential nominees are a year away from being chosen, and we are already facing the longest formal campaign for President in American history, due mainly to the lemming-like frontloading of caucuses and primaries by the states next January and February. The wild rumor-mongering about VP nominees makes the situation worse, not better–turning the voters off to politics even faster than might have occurred otherwise. Therefore, we have decided to do something about this degrading practice. In this article we will attempt to exhaust the gossip, guesswork, and hearsay about Veeps–rendering further tittle-tattle unnecessary, and short-circuiting this destructive past-time for months to come. Please don’t thank us. We sense just how grateful you already are–and our mission is to serve you and your political needs. Let’s start by asking the most important question. Ideally, what does a presidential candidate need in a VP ticket-mate? Here are the important elements, and a second-banana nominee ought to meet most of these criteria: The Veep should be disciplined, relatively scandal-free, and cause no major problems at

In 1968 the country had 14 state presidential primaries, scheduled rather sensibly and intermittently between March and June. In 2008 a minimum of 42 primaries will be held, possibly as many as 47, beginning in January, or even earlier, and stretching out for six long months. Even worse, the ’08 schedule will be the most “front-loaded” ever, with so many contests moved into January and early February that the party nominees might be determined in the blink of an eye, with no chance for “buyer’s remorse.” In 1980 only one state had a primary or caucus by the end of February. By 2000 nine states did so, and in 2004, nineteen. Next year, an incredible thirty states are on track to push into January or February. If the job of scheduling the presidential nominating contests were assigned to an insane asylum, this is pretty much what the patients would come up with. Reform is much needed, but it isn’t going to happen for 2008. The system is out of control, and no entity with a national perspective is in charge–not the Congress, not the political parties. Individual states are ruling the roost, doing what they think is in their interests.