Could this man be the next President of the United States?
May 26th, 2005
Barack Obama - 3rd favourite for the Democratic nomination
Over the past few months there has been growing speculation that Barack Obama, a Senator from Illinois, might be the Democrat contender for the White House. He came to prominence with a major speech at the party Convention in Boston last July and in recent weeks has become third favourite in the betting behind Hilary Clinton and John Edwards. The best price you can get is 8/1.
But a better long-shot bet might be the 50/1 that’s available on him going all the way and becoming George Bush’s successor at the White House. We normally do not like these long-distance bets where the only purpose seems to aid the cash-flow of the bookie. In this case we think it might be worth a small punt.
In a profile in the Independent David Usborne had a good description of the rising expectations that Obama might be the man.
….Obama, a lanky man with distractingly long fingers and a narrow face that looks younger than his 43 years, is suddenly one of the brightest and most promising stars in the American political firmament. It really started at the Democrat’s national convention in Boston last summer. The speech he delivered in praise of the party’s presidential candidate, John Kerry, galvanised delegates and captivated reporters. “Political poetry”, gushed one CNN commentator. One line rang in the hall the longest. It was the one about the hope “of a skinny kid with a funny name who believes that America has a place for him, too”. Himself, in other words.If he had any doubt that such a place existed, it was surely eased a few months later. Kerry did not win the White House, but Obama’s victory in Illinois was spectacular. After eight years of relative obscurity toiling in the state legislature, he defeated his Republican opponent in the Senate race by a landslide. With 70 per cent of the votes, he found himself singled out as just about the only good thing that happened to the Democrats in 2004..
Looking at the other possible candidates for the Democrat nomination Hilary Clinton is always going to be a divisive character and clearly is the one to beat. John Edwards is in second place in the betting but his position might have been hurt by being on the losing ticket with John Kerry last November. In this context Barack might stand a chance - just. Worth a tenner surely?
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
No
Hmmmm - the George Osborne of the Democrat Party?!
From memory, he was so certain of winning he spent a lot of time helping out his fellow Democrats in other areas, helping gain brownie points. A possibility, but as you say, very far off
Are there any substantive (ie. policy) differences between H. Clinton, Edwards and Obama?
I pay attention to you, Mike, if nobody else does. I’ve no idea, but as you fancied it, I thought it must be worth a score. The brave boys at Paddy power cut me down to £17.50, so thats what I’ve invested. Still, I actually managed to get your advised price of 50-1
Thanks for the vote of confidence David 5. I just invested a tenner at 50/1. William Hill have Barback at 25/1 and the Gaming Club 33/1.
On his becoming the democratic candidate, possibly. On him becoming President No. There is still a strong undercurrent of race in American politics which he would find hard to overcome. Also looking at his profile, he does not strike me as a centrist in the way someone like Joe Lieberman is. On policy issues I suspect he would get torn apart in a Presidential race. Anyway I suspect he would want to wait, till the contest after next or the one after that, depending on who wins next time. Remember the dangers of looking at American politics through British political lenses.
Just too inexperienced I think. The real value may be among some of the state governors - a much more promising launching pad for a White House run than the Senate is.
He is on the left of the party- as is Hilary, although she is making some very clever moves to the right of Bush on immigration and other issues, which she must do to win.
I don’t think he has a hope of being a candidate for president, but VP could be a better bet. It depends how popular he remains in his state and around the country. He may shore up the black vote- although it doesn’t seem to be at threat at the moment- still 90 odd % going to the dems.
As for Joe Lieberman mentioned above- apparently he is MUCH more popular in his Connecticut seat with Republicans than he is with Democrats- joe often takes the ‘conservative’ view on issues- I remember seeing a tv ad saying something like ‘remember which side of the isle you are on Joe!’ run by some liberal group.
Still, the black votes not got a high turnout if I recall correctly, so he might boost that.
Ofcourse, if Rice also stands that may affect him…
I worked for some years for the American pollster Wirthlin. One of our clients was Colin Powell. I heard on some authority that one of the reasons he decided not to run for President despite percentages showing it a possibility (and I think the first black President would be more likely to be a Republican)was the risk of assassination.
It pains me greatly to report this …
He was helped in Ilinois by having a ludicrously bad Republican candidate against him. That said he would have probably beaten a tougher opponent by a wide margin too.
If, and it’s a big if, he runs as the Democratic candidate he would gain votes as being a devoted family man, devout Christian and brilliant speaker. He would also have trouble in south for obvious reasons.
Also bear in mind that there is no obvious Republican candidate who will carry the Christian vote in such numbers as Bush at the next election.
Obama would have a good shot at the presidency. His real problem is getting the nomination.
You are right about obvious candidates for the Republicans- the problem for the two popular choices in polls- Giuliani and McCain, is that they are pro-choice and socially moderate- the key to Bush’s success in 2004 was the huge Christian right trunout. They would almost certainly put up a fight against these two. A more right wing choice, such as Rick Santorum, is in trouble with his own senate seat, and others do not have the popularity or name recognition.
I saw a newspaper article recently which reported that Republican congressman admitted that Hilary would be ‘very hard to beat’. I think, as things stand, they may be right.
PS: There is an interesting poll on the website for what was the most accurate polster in 2004, rasmussenreports.com, that has a Hilary tracking poll about her move to the right- since january she has started to covince the public that she is ‘moderate’.
Obama is not right for 2008 in my view - too new/young. Nor Clinton nor Kerry - the former too divisive and the latter had his chance and blew it. I’d love to see either John Edwards or Evan Bayh (Indiana senator) win out in 2008. The latter would definitely appeal to the Iowa/Missouri/Ohio demographic that the dems have to win and is suitably telegenic without being too leftist for the US palate. Edwards has given himself 4 years outside senate to build - hopefully his wife is recovering too - if so, he’ll be in a good position. I could see Al Gore having another crack as well (mistake). Obama a brilliant candidate for 2012 should the dems lose (unlikely) or otherwise 2016 - he would be mid 50’s. Whatever we definitely need the neocon death cult to be ejected from power…….
7 - Lieberman these days is what they call a DINO - Dem In Name Only - he is nowadays loathed in democratic activist circles as a sell out - huge supporter of the war etc. His day has surely gone as regards any presidential bid, especially with Dean as the fundraising engine of the party.
13 - I wouldn’t really describe McCain as pro-choice, although the Christian Right doesn’t find him committed enough on abortion. Though he is regarded as a moderate because he’s out of step on some things with the neocons, his voting record all in all is quite conservative.
You are right book value- pro-choice was a bit strong, but he does not have the hard line views of Bush that helped him win the election. McCain is also happy to work with Democrats and agree with democrats at times- the recent ‘Nuclear Option’ situation showed this, and also his work with one of the most liberal members- Ted kennedy- on immigration reform.
No.
I would be amazed if Obama ran in 2008, it not that he isn’t gifted its just that after barley four years of governmental experience and with a fairly liberal voting record he would firstly be an easily target for the GOP and secondly would find it tough to cement a base within the Democratic Party as a whole.
But in a presidential election what would Obama offer…?
Appeal to Black voters? the Democrats don’t need that they have the Black vote pretty much sown up!
Securing Illinois? It’s a solid Democratic state, Kerry beat Bush there by 10 points!
In short he brings nothing more than an energised Democratic base, and that didn’t get Kerry very far in 2004.
Edwards, quite frankly, is an irrelevance, a one term senator with a liberal voting record that would make it next to impossible for him to challenge for any political office in his native North Carolina and after four years of doing diddley-squat what experience or proven support would he bring? A charismatic speaker and the candidate who in the 2004 primaries had perhaps the most innovative and well thought our policy prospectus but it did not win the primaries then and on its own it would not do so in 2008 nor would it win the general election.
But who else could there be, Hillary Clinton? Unlikely! As with Obama she does nothing to reach out to voters who did not vote for Kerry in 2004 and in fact would serve to fire-up many republican voters and even discourage some moderate democrats, though no doubt her attempt to cast herself as a more moderate sort of Democrat is an attempt to alter this.
There are in fact two contenders who it is amazing have received so little attention so far…
Senator Evan Byah (D-IN) and Governor Mark Warner (D-VA).
Both are moderate Democrats elected to state-wide office in states which voted heavily for Bush in both 2000 and 2004 (indeed Warner was elected only two months after 9/11 at the height of Bush’s popularity).
In order to win in 2008 the Democrats have to undermine the GOP base and appeal to the moderate conservatives and “value voters” who felt alienated by the national democratic party in 2004 but where less than certain of Bush’s GOP and in the end plumbed for what they saw as the “lesser of two evils” which many saw as Bush and the GOP. But both Warner and Bayh have a track record of appealing to traditionally GOP leaning voters with Warner doing very well with rural voters and Bayh doing comparatively well with social conservatives and evangelical Christians. This is something which neither Obama or Clinton can compete with.
The problem that Bayh and to a lesser extent Warner would face is that the Democratic base, which has the final say on who the party nominates (through the primary system), has little love for either of them and their moderate stances and bipartisan approach.
While Warner has carefully worked to appeal to both the democratic base and more moderate conservatives, Bayh is an unapologetic centrist and has frequently come into conflict with his own party’s base however in the recent battles over judical and cabinet nominees he has been steadfast in his opposition to the majority of Bush’s candidates it remains to be seen however weather this will compensate for moderate stances on other issues in the eyes of the Democratic grass roots remains to be seen.
In 2008 Warner will be a “termed-out” (ineligible to run for another term) governor of a southern state (much like Jimmy Carter) with a solid record of achievement in Virginia and the potential to appeal to voters both in the rustbelt states such as WV, OH and PA as well as more rural southern states such as VA, TN and AR. Where he to not run for the Democratic nomination he might challenge George Allen for his senate seat in 2006 or where he to bide his time he could challenge for John Warner’s senate seat where the elderly republican senator to not contest the seat in 2008. Personally I would have thought that with only four years as a governor Warner would be sensible to look to build up his record and run for one of Virginia’s senate seats… but who knows.
In 2008 Bayh will be in the middle of his second term in the senate and in addition has two terms as Indiana Governor behind him, his posturing on the judicial and cabinet nomination battles suggests that he is moving to appeal more to the Democratic grassroots and as a result it looks like he wants to run, he would, like Warner, be able to appeal both to rural southern and western voters as well as socially conservative blue-collar voters in the Midwest but he would face tough opposition from the pro-choice lobby within the Democratic party and the left of the party would oppose him in much the way they opposed Clinton in 1992. Where he to gain the nomination his only draw back would be his somewhat dry manner but “if” (and it’s a big if) he could get the democratic nomination the GOP would be hard pressed to find a candidate who could beat him.
As for the GOP, the candidate who seems to have the lowest profile of all is South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford an articulate social and fiscal conservative from the deepest of deep southern states with a previous experience as a congressman before being elected governor. To me he is the one Star Republican candidate who would could pose serous problems for the Democrats, not that the likes of Allen or Hagel wouldn’t be credible candidates but Sanford, quite frankly, has it all! Support from the Christian Right, From the Fiscal Conservatives and Business Community and a Southern base… a formidable combination.
McCain I thought was pro-life (in fact I am sure he is). He might have taken Bush in 2000 had GWB and Rove not indulged in some sickening push polling (the stuff they raised about his wife and children was disgraceful). I think he would have a good chance in 2008. He has also kept GWB on side, campaigning for him in the Presidential election in 2004 and speaking at the convention. I personally would like to see Giulani as the next President, but I think that it is unlikely.
20 - yes, the South Carolina push poll was absolutely sickening. I would regard McCain as essentially anti-abortion, but it doesn’t seem to be enough to satisfy the religious right.
I also think no one as socially liberal as Giuliani will be nominated.
19 - Who are the other conservative Republican long shots: Lindsey Graham? Sam Brownback?
Well, no one from the North has been elected to the White House since Jack Kennedy in 1960 (and many say that that election was stolen by Mayor Daley)…
1964: LBJ - Texas
1968, 1972: Tricky Dicky - California
1976: Carter - Georgia
1980, 1984: Reagan - California
1988: Bush père - Texas
1992, 1996: Clinton - Arkansas
2000, 2004: Bush fils - Texas
Co-incidence or demography?
Intersting thread, but I agree with all those who’ve said no. He’s too inexperinced and he’s made a fundamental stragtegic error by being elected to the legislature - he will have a voting record that will be ruthlessly dissected. If he’d stood as governor (like Bush, Clinton and Reagan) he wouldn’t have a national record.
I’m not convinced that any legislator will now ever win the presidency which is why my money (if any bookie will take it) is on Laura Bush as next president who has been surprisingly high profile in the last few months…
19 - Absolutely with you. If you can get 50-1 or more on Evan Bayh that’s a decent £5 investment.
dan do you mean george bushs wife?
mrs clinton vs mrs bush - now ther would be a fight. hasn’t she got a bit of a dodgy past. i dernt really say what ive heard through fear of being wrong or shot.
25 - yep that’s the one - although I don’t think the Dems will choose Hillary.
I agree with both 22 and 23. It is very noticable that the only northern democrat to be elected president since WWII was John Kennedy and he was also the last senator to be elected president. He also had the legacy of support from strongly conservative southern democrats and the south is now nearly solidly republican. I don’t therefore see Obama as a realistic candidate, let alone a presidental winner.
Can’t see Laura Bush wanting to be President in her own right, so I discount that possibility entirely. Hillary is quite another matter. She’s the clear front runner as things stand now, but she’s just far too polarising a figure to win a national election. Much has been said about the need for a Democrat to have some appeal in the south if there is to be any chance of them winning the White House - well, there’s Hillary’s first problem. Her support in the south, with the possible exception of Florida will be nil, and even Florida has only voted for a Democrat for President once in the last 25 years.
On the Republican side - much less clear cut. Cheney isn’t running, so the field is wide open. McCain would be a good candidate for the general, but I don’t think he can win the GOP nomination. Frist has probably been hurt, perhaps fatally, by his inability to force the issue of judges in the Senate this week. I expect the next GOP presidential candidate will come from the ranks of the Republican Governors.
Interesting point about the south. However two of the Presidents who have come from the South, probably didn’t carry a strong Southern link. Bush Senior was very much a Washington insider, whereas Nixon had been living for six years in New York before he took the top job again. Indeed he had been defeated in the governor’s race for California in 1962. I think a Northerner could win it, provided they could square the moral circle. Kerry failed to do it and ended up looking like a hypocrite for saying he was a strong Catholic and yet having pro-choice views. I still think the Democrats missed out with Joe Lieberman. He had the right view on the war, a strong religious basis and would have still pulled in the visceral anti-Bush just by being the Democrat’s candidate.
29 - Bush senior was born in Connecticut (his father was a Connecticut senator in the 1960s). He himself represented Texas in the House, but I don’t think he was particularly identified as a southerner.
Nader would have got 8% or so with Lieberman as the Democrat candidate, I think.
Andrew Milne [29] - I think, at least in respect of abortion, you mean the “immoral circle” … there’s a school of thought that holds that the US Right are very happy indeed with the present position: they can garner votes by “pro-life” posturing whilst actually legislating to overturn Roe v Wade would only galvanise the “pro-choice” majority…
23 - very difficult to know when people are being serious on this site.
“…of a skinny kid with a funny name who believes that America has a place for him, too”.
And anyway by 2008 I think this sort of sentimental claptrap might bring about a collective vomit of American voters who might then elect someone less syrupy
I can’t see Obama as presidential candidate next time, but VP candidate, now…
As for the Republicans, we don’t seem to hear much about Jeb Bush these days - why not? America seems comfortable with political dynasties…
Re [34] - may not be unconnected with the allegation that Jeb’s got the brains in the family…
Touchy, Roger?
I think Iowa governor Tom Vilsack (IA) may be in with a shout, too. Americans do tend to prefer presidential candidates with exectutive, as opposed to legislative, backgrounds. Bill Richardson (AZ) does not seem to be making noises this time, but would be good for denting the Rep’s increasing Latino vote. Lastly, Wes Clark, who in my opinion should have won the nomination last time, or at least become Kerry’s VP, might be good.
BTW, although Giuliani is being touted for the other side, I’m pretty sure there’s no way he will stand. His main bet is to get onto a ticket as VP, perhaps with McCain but probably not given their common “centrist” credentials. Interestingly, McCain could well stand as a one-term president, given his age, and his VP candidate might become an annointed successor.
37 - well, Clark is potentially electable as a person, but needs to get himself some policies: he was comically inept at answering substantive questions last time. Richardson (from New Mexico, not Arizona) does seem like a possible - I suppose he may be working under the radar (shades of 1990/1 where there was plenty of Democrat hand wrining that the election was already lost, there was no remotely electable candidate, and I even remember a commentator seriously suggesting they draft Perot onto their ticket!)
Janet Napolitano of Arizona is another south-western governor with potential centrist appeal.
Andy C
Have to say that it amazes me when people make the same mistakes with US presidential politics year in year out, the idea that a liberal senator from a deep blue state with only a few years political experience at the national level would be a credible candidate who could not only win the Democratic nomination but actually beat the GOP candidate nationally is barmy, Hillary’s case is somewhat stronger as she has begun to strike a more moderate tone and could rely on some hefty backing from the Democratic Party leadership where she to run for the nomination but in a general election she would probably find it even tougher than Obama as she has to a large extent already been defined as being on the Liberal side of the Democratic Party and Conservatives have also been successful in painting her as some kind of “ice queen” and careerist.
“That said” perhaps Clinton could fight back by evoking found memories of her husbands time in office in a similar way to what Nixon did in 1968 by contrasting the unrest and chaos of the late 1960’s with the perceived tranquillity of Ike’s administration when Nixon had been VP. But she would still motivate many republicans to come out to vote against her and would be unlikely to win over any voters who Kerry did not win this time around.
Bayh and Warner have to be the strongest contenders IMHO, and of those two Bayh is by far the better candidate for the general election, with two terms in the senate and two terms as a governor, a moderate record and a history of raking up impressive wins (60%+) in a strongly republican state. Bayh problem is the opposite of Clinton’s and Obama’s namley that he will find it tough to win over Democratic activists, not as tough as it was for Lieberman in 04, but still pretty tricky and the pro-choice lobby will be dead set against him.
It’s the experience of the Democrats in Pennsylvania which must offer Bayh the most hope, there the Democratic party is desperate to unseat the arch-social conservative and Bush loyalist Senator Rick Santorum but had in the past nominated weak pro-choice leftwing candidates, the strongest candidate by far was the popular son of a former governor and state treasurer Bob Casey Jr, but he was a pro-life “blue dog” conservative democrat however so keen was the democratic leadership to win and so desperate where the democratic base in PA to beat that Casey is now pretty running unopposed for the Dem nomination and is in with a very good chance of retaking the Senate seat in 2006… Bayh must hope a similar thing happens nationally
Re - 39 There’s a wonderful bit in the West Wing where Josh says to Leo “I don’t believe the party is stupid enough to select yet another liberal northern academic”. Leo - “No, I believe were exactly that stupid!”
I’m of the view that to win the Democrats need to do something that is different - both Gore and Kerry were pretty mainstream, establishment types that didn’t really exite anyone.
What would happen to a black candidate in the south - they’d probably lose - but then the Dems have come close to winning the last two elections despite losing most of the Deep South (ex Confederacy) anyway - probably only Florida is remotely in play. You’ll lose the red neck vote but there might be some mileage in a committed church-goer in picking up some of the more moderate Christian vote or at least challenging the Republican assumption that “if your a committed Christian you can only vote Republican” that has developed in recent years.
I’ve not seen any figures but I can’t believe there isn’t a margin to be gained from increased turnout among black voters - especially somewhere like Ohio.
One thing not mentioned is that running a Black candidate makes it much more difficult to run negative attack-style ads.
All that said I don’t think Obama will make it to be the candidate - primarily as his inexperience will count against him but a strong run could position him nicely for a VP slot or 2012.
The democrats are completely desperate if they are anything near somethhing like choosing Obama for president… Let’s be serious : apart for being black, skinny and having a funny name, what does Obama really stand for? He beat a total loony in the 2004 race, in a very democrat-leaning state. So what?
Did any one of you see his victory speech? it was more than sirupy, i was ashamed for him : the only thing he did was praising his wife (ok…) and kids (uh, a bit strange to put forward an 8 year old kid as a superstar), his nephews,his uncle, his cousins, his mother, ansd so on… they were 15 on the stage, like the illinois royal family. Well i would have voted democrat in that race but i still don’t give a toss about this kind of tears and syrup policy, gross even by an americian standard…
As someone observed above - a very good thread and it makes a change from UK politics. There’s nothing that’s been written that undermines my contention that he is worth a 50/1 shot.
Thinking forward just two and a half years you can see what a hurdle the Iowa caucuses in January 2008 are going to be for Hilary. The nature of this process and the way people get together and discuss the options saw off the favourite, Howard Dean last year and might be the context that is good for a charismatic contender like Barack
I’m sorry Mike but your wrong.
A fairly metropolitan candidate like Obama would not win in a predominately rural, blue-collar contest such as the Iowa caucus the likes of Edwards, Warner, Bayh or perhaps Jo Biden would fair far better.
With a solid first or second place both Bayh and Warner would stand a good shot at winning the NH primary where the independent voters get a shot at influencing the process and while the substantial black vote in the ensuing southern primaries might help a black candidate the moderates such as Bayh and Warner would beat someone like Obama hands down amongst the moderate “yellow dog” voters that dominate the contests in the south and Obama’s chances against Warner or Bayh in the northern primaries in states such as Michigan and Wisconsin where american’s trades unions and blue collar workers come into play wouldn’t be much better.
And as I’ve said in the past, what would Obama, with four years as a senator, a liberal voting record and a pretty face bring into play which Kerry didn’t? I can’t see it, to be fair I think that Obama would be better equipped to appeal to “values voters” than Kerry was however his record would hamper him much as it did Kerry and his inexperience would hurt him in the same way it hurt Edwards… he just couldn’t compete with the pulling power amongst moderates and “values voters” that Bayh or Warner would command.
Ben 43. I think that your are underestimating people from Iowa. They went for Kerry last time in spite of the huge band-wagons for Dean and Gephardt. Also Barack’s mother is from Kansas which would be played up.
Hilary is by far and away the favourite for the nomination but don’t underestimate Barack.
I just don’t see it Mike, as I’ve said its just way to soon for Obama to run he might make some head way in the primaries but as in 2004 I would expect Iowa to plum for the more moderate rounded candidates such as Warner and Bayh just as in 2004 they plumed for Edwards and Kerry both of whom worked hard to appeal to both the Blue collar union workers and the rural voters who dominate the caucus night.
I doubt Obama’s mother being from Kansas would have a great deal of mileage, useful as a piece of imagery but it not as though Kansas is particularly close to Iowa they don’t even border one another indeed while Kansas is a solidly republican “plains state” Iowa is very much as Midwestern swing state with significant urban centres such as De Moines and Ceder Rapids unlike Kansas… nah “that dog don’t hunt”
Its also doubtful that Obama could bring new voters to the Democrats who backed Bush in 2004, indeed it is only Warner and Bayh who have a proven record of attracting these key voters and in Bayh’s case winning over 40% of self identified Evangelical Christians in his native Indiana – if anyone can win it for the Democrats Bayh can, Obama in many respects is very similar to John Edwards only Black, the same problems such as a liberal voting record and a lack of experience would dog him just as they dogged, and indeed continue to dog, Edwards… Bayh however has a solid moderate record and experience both as a governor and a senator and to top it off he’s from one of Bush’s strongest states where he was up for re election in 2004 and even outpolled Bush with 65% to Bush’s 60%… similarly Warner beat Bush personal choice for VA Governor in an election barley two months after 9/11 when Bush popularity was at its height again in a GOP leaning state, Obama beat a “nut-job” effectively disowned by the national GOP in a heavily Democratic state all be it by a big margin.
Ben - how do you know all this stuff???
45 - actually, the Illinois race was fairly tight until the scandal erupted around Ryan and the GOP chose Keyes instead. From all I can tell, Obama’s a good guy, but it’s way to soon to talk about him running for the White House.
Edwards is pretty hampered by being out of the Senate with nothing to do now.
Ben, you were the first person I remember to mention Phil Bredesen as a potential Dem candidate - any more views on him?
Let’s get real here. Obama is too young, too liberal and for many people, probably the wrong colour to be elected POTUS in the near future. I think it was Robert Waller who said above that the first minority President will probably be a Republican, and I agree with that. What’s the difference between nominating a cosmopolitan Liberal from Chicago and one from Boston? Not very much, I shouldn’t think. They’d both lose.
47 - Yesterday the FBI indicted 4 leading members of the Tennessee legislature after a sting operation. Suspect anyone connected with Tennessee politics (incl Bredesen) will be keeping a low profile nationally for the forseeable until this all plays out.
Tabman…. “I know all, I see all”… didn’t you watch that dispatches program!?!
I mean now that Leicester South is firmly back in the warm socialist bosom of the Labour party we can start to concentrate on things that actually matter like the US Presidential elections
Book Value, Phil Bredesen won pretty solidly in a Southern republican leaning state, Tennessee, and he is very good at courting the “values voters” that are so important the Dems in 06 and 08 and yet would seem to have been largely monopolised in 2004 by the GOP.. but as with Bayh, Bredesen has staked out pretty conservative stances on the issues and stands to the right of both Bayh and Warner for the most part, indeed if both Warner and Bayh where to face challenges from the liberal left of the party that would prove tricky the opposition to a conservative Democrat like Bredesen could prove to much to make a run for the nomination feasible… also like Obama I think he needs more time to cement his position in TN and potentially run for a second term before he thinks about national office though he would be a credible VP for a younger nominee, perhaps.
50 - Therein lies the rub. Don’t you think it’s going to be difficult for these conservative Democrats to win a Democratic primary which is largely dominated by left wing activists? It’s the same problem that moderates have navigating the Republican nominating process.
Paul M, question is does it hurt the GOP or the Democrats more? either way its impact on the senate race there in 2006 will be interesting… Harold Ford looks set to be the Democratic Candidate and is in many ways a more conservative version of Obama, though to be honest it takes time to get past his southern drawl
If he is elected to the Senate then that will be a second Black, Democratic, Senator and one from a southern state with a moderate record and a number of terms as Congressman to flesh out his CV… he has to win statewide in TN first though and that will be tough but the race will be very competative with both sides putting alot into it.
45 - The fact that Bayh could probably deliver IN for the democrats in a presidential election would also be a real plus - I suspect this effect would also diffuse across to OH as well. It is impossible to understate the disaster that was Gore’s failure to deliver his own state in 2000. Incidentally I’ve never understood why IN is quite such a republican stronghold - more so than neighbouring OH, IL and MI and perhaps even more than KY to the south.
A.H. Matlock
Depends how moderate they are, and how desperate the Democrats are ater four more years of GWB, in PA the Democratic Party is clearly prepared to back a candidate who can win over one who the liberal left might see as “ideological pure”… it remains to be see weather the same sort of thing will unfold on the national stage.
Bayh will have the pro-choice lobby against him but can easily be cast as a fiscal populist and opponent of some of Bush’s judicial and cabinet appointees… unlike Lieberman Bayh is also sensible enough to speak to the Democratic Party in its own language and not chastise the very grass roots he will rely on in order to win, Warner has a more nuanced stance on abortion but would probably be not much more palatable to the pro-choice lobby than Bayh. Warner however has a populist record as governor that would probably leave him in a stronger position that Bayh, but then again Bayh’s experience as both a Governor and a senator dwarfs that of Warner who’s term will expire in 2005 and will have only held office for four years… both would be palatable to the Democratic Base but neither would have good relations with the pro-abortion lobby and that would mean at least one well financed “Liberal” candidate such as Senator Russ Feingold in the race for the nomination supported by the pro-choice lobby.
But to conclude, both Bayh and Warner have the record and the political sense to run for and win the Democratic nomination and then go on to win the presidential election, making them something of a rarity within the Democratic Party.
While this is all interesting, I still take the Republicans to win hands down in 2008. The Democrats, like the British Conservatives have huge problems and are nowhere near to sorting them out. Even if they select a moderate candidate like Bayh, they would only be papering over the cracks, cracks which a long campaign would expose.
The main problems they will have, are the shift to the left that is taking place in the Democrats, the question of what do they stand for, v.bad electoral hurdles (Red States are growing, the Blue States are shrinking), the breakup of the solid latino vote (see AB’s for Tories), which now only goes Democrat 60:40 and the lack of Democrats in the South in general (like Tories in the North).
Provided the Republicans pick the right candidate, they will sweep the floor with the Democrats, as the war in Iraq fades (associated with Bush). Also it is significant that the Republicans have a much better GOTV operation than the Democrats. It will also be easy for them to again mine the religious right (though I don’t like that phrase) for votes.
The Democrats’ basic problem is that having become the party of minorities, they’re now the party of the minority.
54 - Feingold is interesting: though certainly a liberal, he has some of the maverick about him which can reach across parties (viz Livingstone outpolling Labour in London, though I quite like Feingold and detest Livingstone). His recent divorce will sadly be likely to count against him though. Yes, Reagan was divorced (his first wife, as a friend of mine astonishingly guessed in a pub quiz this week, starred in “Falcon Crest”) but he was visibly happily remarried when he was elected.
I don’t see the point in the Democrats nominating Bayh, to be quite frank. The electorate given the choice between the Republican candidate and Republican-lite (Bayh), they’ll choose the real thing every time. Besides which, I don’t think he could beat Hillary Clinton for the nomination in any event.
I know less abour Warner, but the lesson of John Edwards suggests that choosing your candidate from a state that leans strongly toward the other party doesn’t guarantee that you will be able to pry that state away from them. Virginia hasn’t voted for a Democrat for President since 1964.
56 - Spot on, Sean.
55 - I don’t share your synthesis, What makes you think Iraq is going to fade as an issue - if it does it can only fade in the context of a national humiliation. The US army is still losing 2 soldiers a day plus large numbers of wounded; and recruitment is becoming a huge problem with mutterings about the need for a draft; what’s more GWB’s big agenda for this term (Social security) is deeply unpopular with the electorate. With a flatlining economy to boot, GWB’s popularity is plummeting.
I really believe that a moderate D will wipe the floor with Jeb Bush, Bill Frist or whoever the Reps put up in 2008.
52 - Ben . Corruption scandals tend to hurt incumbents, so my guess is it might hurt Ford, especially since his uncle is one of those indicted, and his base is in Memphis. That said, he is very popular and good on TV, and moderate enough in demeanour and voting record to win.
Whose is defending the TN seat? Frist or Alexander?
Andy C, the frightening thing for the Democrats is that they look destined to lose most elections for the foreseeable future, regardless of how the Republicans perform. The Republicans represent middle America; the Democrats represent a whole host of interest groups, some of them pretty weird.
From 1932 to 1994, the Democrats were the natural party of government in the US; now they’re the natural party of opposition. And it’s largely self-inflicted.
62 - It’s Frist’s seat, but he’s retiring, presumably to run for President.
63 - “The Republicans represent middle America; the Democrats represent a whole host of interest groups, some of them pretty weird.”
I wonder if you could replace Dem and Rep with Labour and Tories, and if so which way round?
It’s hard to compare a two party system with a three and a bit party system.
62 - It’s an open seat. Frist is standing down.
63 - Yes I know what you’re saying but the hard fact is that in the last two elections it has in reality been incredibly close - one state short. The democrats’ main problem is in reality the media, which is incredibly deferential to republicans. Increasingly though I feel that moderate Republican America is beginning to realise the agenda that is being forced on the Republicans by the religious right - this is reactionary - not moderate. When the D’s put up a candidate who cannot be characterised as a wishy washy flip flopping Massachusetts liberal they will win over a section of that moderate middle America. This will bring them enough states - Ohio, West Virginia, Iowa, Montana, Arkansas, Nevada, Colorado etc., that they will win a majority - without the need to win the south, which has been lost to them since the civil rights debate and won’t come back.
Frist will not be president. I have never seen a less charismatic politician. And, deep in the past though it may be, his cat-killing escapades as a student will be brought up to ridicule him out of the race. He’d be better off staying in the Senate.
Yes, but the Senate and the House don’t look that close now. And it wasn’t that long ago that the Democrats regularly won 60% of the seats in each. At every level below the Presidency, the USA looks fairly secure for the Republicans. How much can a Democrat President do (in the current climate) if he faces a Congress under Republican control?
The Religious Right may well overplay their hand. But America is a very religious country, and the Religious Right looks a good deal less odd to the average elector than say, the feminist, atheist, or gay organisations that gravitate towards the Democrats.
68 - I quite agree that he’s not up to being President. His performance this week makes one wonder if he’s up to his current job being Senate Majority Leader.
book value
Frist is standing down, and is widely expected to run for the GOP nomination his posturing on the judicial nominations is interesting and he would apear to be working to lock up the “Christian right” to ease his path to the GOP nomination in 2008, “that said” he is about the dryest speaker in the Senate and overall has a less than inspiring record this plus the fact that he openly admits adopting cats while a medical student and eviscerating them means he wouldn’t be the GOP’s strongest candidate.
VA Senator George Allen would be a solid southern candidate but where he to run I get the sense that Mark Sanford the low profile governor of SC would be a very powerful candidate in a general election.
As for the senate election in Tennessee, Ford would have a very good shot, the tables would be tilted in the GOP’s favour but TN is a relatively moderate southern state and Ford is a very “southern” politician with a strong moderate record as a congressman… it will be an interesting race to watch, and Ford already has plenty of money left over from his last congressional battle.
68 and 71 - we must stop agreeing like this! I can’t imagine the cats ended up looking any less lifelike than he does.
Tennessee is historically the most liberal southern state (though Virginia and Florida may be catching up due to demographics). It had two liberal senators (Gore Sr and Kefauver) at a time when the rest of the southern senators were diehard segregationists.
72 - I think the Southern US is a political dead man’s land for the Democratic Party and I don’t see anything changing in the near future to change any of that. Florida wasn’t as close as the Kerry campaign had hoped it would be last time, and the Democrats lost an open Senate seat that they held in the previous Congress. Tennessee may be a bit more moderate, but you have to assume that the Republican candidate has a built-in advantage in any statewide contest. Even Georgia, the last bastion of the conservative Southern Democrat has gone the way of the dodo for them now.
73: Nice of you to say so Mike
, then again i did thin we’d get a majority of 85 so I’m afraid that even i don’t know everything, indeed I’d hazard that you have a far better track record than I…
“That said” US Politics is something of a fascination of mine.
On the subject of Frists’ cat killing, to quote John Stewart… “Come on guys at least he’s not Trent Lott, the guy killed white cats, he killed black cats, tabbies… even, if I may say, the occasional Persian, he did not discriminate!”
69 - I take your point about congress - especially as the next batch of senate races look tricky again for the D’s, with them defending more seats than the R’s. D’s will look for gains in PA (Santorum), RI (Chafee) and perhaps MT (Burns) and the open seat in TN but have tough red state seats to defend in ND, NE and FL. A real litmus test for a D revival in middle america could be Jim Talent’s Missouri seat - definitely vulnerable to a good democrat challenge in a swing state.
Interesting poll from USA Today Gallup- 33% of conservatives would consider voting Hlary- and over 50% are planning to vote for her- up 8% on recent poll.
Looking good for her!
78 - But wait till Fox News and Talk Radio start stirring it up - those ratings would plummet. I really think much as I like her that Hillary has too much baggage - the D’s need a uniter and she’s not it. Surely the US needs neither another Clinton nor a Bush in the WH.
76 - I think Chafee will hold on in RI, though that’s not incompatible with it soon becoming a Democrat seat.
Also Jeffords is up for reelection in Vermont this time isn’t he? I would have thought he’s likely to become an official Democrat rather than risk a three-way fight in a blue state.
80 - Sen. Jeffords has already announced his intention to stand down.
80 - Jeffords is standing down - unexpectedly. But it looks like another independent (Bernie Sanders - current congressman?) is a shoo-in. I believe the Dems might even not contest.
Another name I’ve picked up as a potential VP/POTUS candidate is Brian Schweitzer, governor of Montana. I don’t know anything about him except he’s very popular and in the vanguard of a huge democratic revival in MT.
81, 82 - ah. Thanks.
For those of you interested in the minutiae of US political trends on a state by state, district by district basis, the Almanac of American Politics 2006 by Michael Barone would be an excellent reference book. If anyone knows of a similar calibre book covering UK constituencies would be interested to see it.
84 - there is an Almanac of British Politics whose author, Robert Waller, often posts here. I believe the new edition is currently in the writing.
84, I won’t say it’s of the same calibre - it isn’t - but I pinched the idea for The Almanac of British Politics (Routledge) by myself and Byron Criddle, which has been appearing since 1983, 7th edition 2002, 8th just starting writing. The credit for any value in this belongs with Michael Barone, who is a kindred spirit and has become a friend of mine.
He even shared the polling booth with me when I voted in 2001!!
I have used his book on my trips to the States since 1977. I have aimed to visit every state (have made it to 49) but can’t compete with Michael, in this either - he has visited every district.
80, the Democrats have not opposed Bernie Sanders in the House for some years. He is counted as a Dem to ‘organise’ the House. He would be a strong favourite for Senator if he is going for it as the comfortably returned ‘at large’ Representative for Vermont (ie the single House constituency) since 1990. I think he still describes himself as the one Socialist in Congress.
On the substantive issue of the thread (and I won’t give best of the anoraks to Ben on this - as I said above, and told the author, the Almanac of American Politics is my bible!): the Democrats can win the Presidency in 2008. Kerry cam pretty close for a rather wooden Massachustetts liberal. As Barone dubbed it, the US is the 49% country - an almost even divide on the important social/lifestyle/ideological liberal-secular vs conservative/religious cleavage. Also throw in at the margin, as the last succesful Democrat for President said, ‘it’s the economy …’
However, the Democrat concerend would have much more of a chance from the centre ground - eg Evan Bayh, Mark Warner - if they can win the primaries. Hillary is seen as less a ‘New Democrat’ than Bill, and she isn’t a southerner - but she’ll be hard to beat among D primary voters.
I don’t think Obama is a contender. Remember that African-Americans are less than 10% of the population now, and a declining proportion. A Hispanic would be a much more likely ‘minority’ winner. In time, watch out for George P Bush, who can count as a Hispanic and a Bush. One other De possibility I should have mentioned is Bill Richardson from New Mexico, who despite his name is Hispanic.
More US Presidents in recent decades have come from being governors than from Congress, which is logical given the executive/legislative separation. Also for UK observers: the Cabinet is not the stepping stone it is over here; there is very little in the way of precedent for a President coming by that route, eg Condoleeza Rice.
It is, literally, open for 2008.
On the 2006 midterm congressional elections, in the Senate (currently 55-45 effectively)the Democrats are defending 17 (18 if you count Jeffords/Samders in Vermont), the R only 15. These are seats last contested in 2000. Five of the Democrats won with between 49 and 51% i.e, very tight races - Dayton (MN), Corzine (NJ - despite spending $63 million mainly of hos own money), Ben Nelson (NE), Bill Nelson (FL) and Stabenow (MI). Only three of the R were close, 51-52%: Burns (MT), Talent (M0) and Santorum (PA). Talent will now have incumbency and won’t be facing a Carnahan, dead or alive; Burns should retire; and Santorum though a right wing ideologue must be favourite.
With most states won by Bush in 2000 and 2004, whatever the national popular vote, it would take a huge turnround for the D to regain control of the Senate. Don’t forget too that the retirement of a popular individual can lead to huge swings. For example, Robert Byrd of West Virginia won 78% in 2000, but would be three weeks short of 89 years old in 2006 - and Bush won W Virginia both times.
As for the House, with gerrymandering and a gigantic electoral advantage for incumbents, it will be hard for the D to overturn even a 25 seat R lead as well.
Robert - I undertand that Sen. Corzine is likely to seek the Governorship of New Jersey and therefore be seeking re-election to the Senate. This will open a seat in a state that leads Democratic, particularly in terms of Senate contests, but seems vulnerable to a good Republican candidate.
In Minnesota, where Mark Dayton has announced his intention to stand down, the former GOP Senator he defeated six years ago, Rod Grams is intending to stand for the seat again. This race must surely be too close to call or even a slight Republican advantage.
Stabenow of Michigan’s fate largely depends on whether or not the former GOP Governor John Engler decides to challenge her. If he does, surely he would have to be the favourite.
I think Bill Nelson in Florida is probably secure unless the Republicans manage to field a star candidate against him, but it will be close due to the fact that the state as a whole has Republican tendencies.
The other Nelson - Ben in Nebraska may be something of a different story. When he first stood for the Senate in 1994 (I think) he was the sitting Governor and he was defeated by a little known Republican called Chuck Hagel. Nebraska is solidy Republican. No Democrat gets elected there without having solidly conservative credentials on important, mostly social issues. Ben Nelson’s fate may be largely dependent on how the Democratic Caucus in the US Senate behaves toward Bush’s other Judicial nominees and one or two likely Supreme Court vacancies over the next 18 months. If they filibuster conservative nominees based on their philosophical stances alone, it may be enough to sink Democrats like Nelson in places like Nebraska.
I agree that Jim Talent should be safe now that he has the advantages of incumbency.
Santorum’s race is going to be interesting. Most people would assume that he’s too conservative for a state like Pennsylvania, but as someone once said ‘Pennsylvania is basically a Red state if you take away Philadelphia’. The Democrats are fielding Pat Casey, the pro-life son of the former Governor, I understand. This could be the marquee race of the cycle.
“Pennsylvania has Philadelphia at one end, Pittsburgh at the other, and Alabama in between.”
89, Alastair, I presume you meant Corzine is not seeking re-election; in which case his ‘buying’ of that Senate seat looks even more expensive! Generally agree about the other races, though Florida’s R tendencies can be fairly narrow, I seem to recall; and Minnesota by the same token is usually D in Presidential races, though of course it has unique DFL v IR state party politics, and has had for the best part of a century. I enjoyed my visit to Nebraska - Carhenge is well worth looking up! - but feel that what goes on in Washington is pretty darn distant to the voters there. I would put my money on Santorum. He may be regarded as a right winger but he’s proved himself to be much stronger than Toomey who so nearly beat Specter in the 2004 primary. A Democrat has not won a Senate race in PA for decades, save Harris Wofford’s rapidly reversed special in autumn 1991, I think.
91 - Quite right, Robert. My fingers have not been terribly cooperative today.
I take your point about legislative matters such as the confirmation of judges being distant from voters in a place like Nebraska, but I do think it provides the Republicans with a means of stirring up their base and sending them into battle. ‘Liberals like Ben Nelson are the Obstructing President Bush’s Pro-Life, Family Values Agenda’ is a clarion call to such folks. It will be a dynamic to watch in the short term.
On an relevant but not immediately related matter, I see that things are starting to look a bit tougher for Gov. Schwarzenegger in CA. Approval rating down to 40% and mass protests against him in Sacramento this week. Could the stardust be wearing off?
91 - Terribly early of course, but polling figures suggest Casey could sink Santorum comfortably. Santorum has been an uber-hawk on social security and it is not playing well. PA apparently has a very high ’senior’ vote.
Conrad Burns in MT is mired in scandal, only scraped home last time and is thought very vulnerable. I wouldn’t share your confidence in Talent’s chances either, depending on who the D’s pick.
Ben Nelson of NE is no liberal - indeed he seems to vote with the R caucus as often as not. As I understand it, the obvious challengers are dropping out and he should hold.
My prediction would be a net gain for D’s of 2 seats in the senate in 2006 - to say 46/1/53. Bush is getting unpopular - the R’s look to me as if they’re overreaching in some areas and it will help the D’s.
86 - Thanks Robert. I look forward to being able to purchase your 8th edition.
I presume from the lack of interest on here that nobody else thinks that Vilsack is an option? I find it just a little surprising given how much he was touted as a potential VP for Kerry, at least in the Nation and so on.
Another good British book is The Political Map of Britain, edited by Lewis Baston and Simon Henig.