The Next Prez analyzed blog posts among the candidates from each party, and found that Kerry and McCain were out in front. This is hardly predictive of who will win, but surveys of who is getting the most blog buzz may be as meaningful as the public opinion polls which are primarily a measure of name recognition and mainstream media hype. Remember before the 2004 primaries when Joe Lieberman led early and Howard Dean led in most later in 2003 and early 2004.
Among Democrats, John Kerry led with 43,056 blog posts. Hillary Clinton was second with 11,508 and Obama was third with 8,594. John McCain led Republicans, followed by Rudy Giulani and Mitt Romney.
Kerry will not, let me repeat, Kerry will not be the Democratic nominee for 2008. Nor should he be.
McCain is equally damaged goods, in my opinion.
I think 2008 will play out this way:
Hillary Clinton gets the nomination. She will face a sleeper challenge by Al Gore, who will hear the cries from Democrats furious with Hillary over her support of the Iraq war and Gore will run as an independent, declaring in the spring of 2008.
Christopher,
Other than your statement about McCain, I see the situation completely differently than you.
I believe that Gore will , in the end, decide not to run. He’s always seemed to me ambivalent about running, at best. Hillary will not get the nomination, or at least she shouldn’t, as she would be a disastrous candidate, especially for the very serious times we’re in, times that demand a fresh approach. (Clinton III, with a history of fund-raising by Murdoch, and record-breaking $36million of spending on a non-competitive Senate race,and the continued trademark triangulation, is not my definition of “fresh”). Kerry remains, by far, the strongest, of all the possible, probable, and already-declared candidates, and , more importantly, the one with the strongest chance to be a great president. He is not “damaged goods”, but the man for the time: a serious man for a serious time.
I think that all the current Republican (possible or actual) candidates are weak, and I pray that the American voters will also see them that way in 2008
“John Kerry, a serious man for a serious time.”
You said it, mbk.
Christopher,
I have a question for you. As a baseball analogy goes, do you think the St. Louis Cardinals should have dumped Albert Pujols after he struck out in a clutch situation? Certainly not, he was their best player and did the most to help their team win the world series.
John Kerry should be President for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is, he is by far the most qualified person to lead this country out of the disasterous wreckage created by Bushco.
Christopher,
Why do you dislike Kerry?
Hillary Clinton has an excellent chance of winning, but it is by no means certain.
Al Gore might run but chances are very low if Hillary remains front runner as she is now. He is much more likely to run if there is a more open field than if he has to come in against a heavy front runner. Chances are greater if he is wooed in to “save the party.”
It is extremely unlikely he will run on a third party.
Anybody in the public eye could be described as damaged goods. That’s the nature of politics. Kerry may be damaged, but so are Gore and Hillary Clinton. They will become more damaged if they win the 2008 nomination. People like Obama, who are not now “damaged” will become targets of the right wing noise machine if they appear to have a chance of winning the domination and will also be damaged.
After all, it is very essy for anyone to be damaged. The attacks can be totally fictitious, as we saw with the Swift Boat Lies. They can do the same to anyone.
Kerry has obvious disadvantages in running in 2008. He also has the advantages that we know what the attacks on him will be, he has first hand experience in what the right wing noise machine can do, and he has been preparing since 2004 to fight back.
Al has already freed up his cash supporters to support other candidates. He may not have the infrastructure anymore.
The joke non-controversy will not hurt Sen. Kerry’s chances as it didn’t hurt the dems in the midterm elections. Most dems know that he was talking about Bush and not the troops. In the end voters will give the nomination to someone who they think can win the general election. The voters trusted and picked Kerry when most thought Gov. Dean would be the presumed nominee. Kerry did it once he can do it again. Also the Iraq war will play a very big part in who will win the nomination. Another thing that will determine the choice is the amount of money the dem candidates can raise. Clinton is now left with 15 million dollars or less.
Kerry is very close to this figure. Sen. Bayh has about 10 million dollars. Most candidates are busy creating the infrastructure required on the ground made up of activists in the 4 key states of IA, NH, NV, and SC. Gore has yet to either visit these places or even raise money for himself. He likes to keep everyone in suspense as to what he’ll do but he knows what his chances are and they aren’t good. In the end we will select a candidate who will have the best plan to end the violence in Iraq and more importantly bring our troops home.
Our dem nominee will also have to go on the record and say that their vote to give Bush the authorization to send troops to Iraq was wrong. Kerry has done this. Clinton and Bayh have not. Also our dem candidate will also have to have a plan to begin withdrawal of troops by a specific date. Kerry favors this approach. Just saying that troops should come home is not enough. Both Clinton and Obama are in favor of a withdrawal but aren’t in favor of setting a specific date. This will hurt them. By the time the IA caucus come around the conditions in Iraq will be a lot worse.
Kerry has the best plan because he is favor of withdrawing troops by a specific date. If Kerry says that he will end the war then he could win the nomination. Plus he is the only veteran in this group. If McCain is the presumed GOP nominee then the dems will also want to pick a veteran. Also McCain will have trouble with the religious right. Mitt Romney has a better chance of winning the nomination. I hope they pick Romney as he has zero foreign policy experience.
Here is how I think the stars are aligning for the Dems in 2008. First, Democratic Presidential chances at this moment in time are very good, however a lot can change in 2 years.
Top tier candidates:
Hillary Clinton
John Kerry
John Edwards
Al Gore (If he decides to run)
In the race, but mainly as potential VP choices:
Wesley Clark (line him up with Clinton…basically, she would need him as a military complement, and he is a Clintonite…he also has a very strong chance at moving into the top tier)
Barack Obama: (line him up with Edwards, or potentially John Kerry)
I am not certain just who I will support in 2008, but if it came down to a choice between Clinton and Kerry, it would definitely be Kerry. I have some major concerns, but I won’t voice them here. I do think that should Edwards, or Kerry come out ahead in the primaries, the best choice for them as VP is Obama.
I will still say however, that there could very well be a dark horse candidate out there, that will emerge.
As for the Republicans, I think you will see someone other than McCain emerge, and then get absolutely trounced, but like I said it is still very early.
KerryDemocrat,
You make excellent points. If Gore ends up not running then it would be interesting to see where his support would go. I don’t think they would go to Clinton. A lot of the support that Edwards initially had has now gone to Obama. It would also be interesting to see which of these current candidates end up on the VP short list. I myself will support Kerry as he is the strongest foreign policy candidate we have. I personally would not want Obama with only 2 years in the Senate on anyone’s VP ticket. It would be damaging. It will be very interesting to see how the repug race develops. The repug activists will want an extremely conservative candidate.
They are not too eager about McCain who is trying very hard to appeal to them. Romney’s religion might hurt his chances though I think many conservatives will quickly warm up to him once they figure out that he is their best hope in terms of a conservative. Then there is Frist who won the TN straw poll. The most conservative is of course Sen. Brownback but he doesn’t have name recognition or the money to stand up to McCain or Romney. Guiliani would be the underdog here because if the James Dobson crowd doesn’t like you, you won’t get the nomination. Another well funded long shot is Bloomberg due to his progressive views.
We have to look at the numbers.
Can Dems afford to remove two Senators from the Senate?
So a combination of Hillary, Kerry, Obama and Biden will not work for me.
It can be one of the above matched with an outsider (Edwards, Gore, Clark, Vilsack, etc).
I am going for a Kerry/Clark depending on the Iraq War and security issues.
Or Kerry/Edwards if the focus is on domestic issues.
Gore’s window is passing by.
If we want to run two sitting Senators then hopefully we can pick off another Repub seat. If DumbYa is still doing badly, we can probably do both; run two Senators and pick at least a seat.
On the other hand, giving up the Senate is worth getting the POTUS. I hope it doesn’t have to be that way.
ooops..if we run two Senators then we need to pick off two repub seats to maintain control of the Senate.
Runing two Senators isn’t necessariy a problem as long as they are blue state Senators who will be replaced with other Democrats. If Kerry runs for President, he cannot simultaneously run for Senate and most likely another Democrat will win his seat. While Mass. changed the law to have direct election to replace Senators, most states continue to have the Governor appoint the replacement, which is fine as long as there is a Democratic governor. Prospects also look good for Democrats to pick up more Senate seats in 2008 based upon who is up for reelection.
With Clinton the big question (with regards to the horse race) is what type of front runner she is. When there is a clear front runner such as sitting President, or Gore as sitting VP in 2000, the front runner would win. When the front runner is a former VP candidate, this turns out to be primarily early name recognition and people like Muskie and Lieberman haven’t been able to win. We’ve never had a situation like Hillary Clinton as front runner. She’s somewhat more than a former VP running mate like Muskie and Liberman, but is not in the position of an actual sitting President or VP.
If Hillary becomes another front runner who doesn’t win, if we go by recent history there is an excellent chance that the winner will be someone low on the list of candidates now as with Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. Perhaps someone like Vilsack or Richardson will get hot in the early primaries as Carter and Clinton did.
Following Kerry is like playing a game of Shoots and Ladders. Kerry was leading in the early summer of 2004 then fell down a long shoot between the Swift Boat lies and the GOP Hate Fest. He climbed up some ladders at the debates to bring it close, and then fell down with losing the election. He’s been trying to climb back up initially it appeared he might succeed by campaigning so hard for others. Then he had the botched joke and fell. For a moment it appeared he was climbinb up a ladder by showing he would fight back, but the conventonal wisdom is that he didn’t handle the attacks well and he fell back down. Time will tell whether he can climb back up.
I think the only situation in which Gore will run is if Hillary is knocked out but nobody else is able to establish themselves as a front runner. However, by waiting that long it is very hard to mount a winning campaign. With his name recognition he could probably decide to challeng Hillary as late as fall of 2007 but that would be a rough fight and I don’t see him wanting to get into that.
Kerry loyalists need to move onward and upward. He’s not going to get the nod in 2008. Trust me on this and I worked on his campaign in 2004.
Here’s an interesting Quinnipiac poll. It asks people how they think about leading presidential candidates. John Kerry comes in dead last.
More Americans Think Well Of Speaker Pelosi, Quinnipiac University National Thermometer Finds; President Is Low On List, But Kerry Is Last
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1295.xml?ReleaseID=990
The mean scores for each politician with the percentage not knowing enough about the individual to rate him or her:
1) Rudolph Giuliani – 64.2. (9)
2) Sen. Barack Obama 58.8 (41)
3) Sen. John McCain 57.7 (12)
4) Condoleezza Rice – 56.1 (7)
5) Bill Clinton – 55.8 (1)
6) Sen. Joseph Lieberman – 52.7 (16)
7) NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg – 51.1 (44)
8) John Edwards – 49.9 (20)
9) Sen. Hillary Clinton – 49 (1)
10) N.M. Gov. Bill Richardson – 47.7 (65)
11) Sen. Joseph Biden 47 (52)
12) Nancy Pelosi 46.9 (34)
13) Gov. Mitt Romney – 45.9 (64)
14) Former VP Al Gore – 44.9 (3)
15) President George Bush – 43.8 (1)
16) Sen. Evan Bayh – 43.3 (75)
17) Newt Gingrich – 42 (15)
18) Sen. Bill Frist – 41.5 (53)
19) Sen. Harry Reid – 41.2 (61)
20) Sen. John Kerry – 39.6 (5)
This is stunning, really. Kerry is less likable that Bill Frist or Newt Gingrich.
Polls such as this have no predictive value this far out. Kerry got a lot of bad publicity before the mid terms and therefore is unpopular at the moment. Bill Frist and Newt Gingrich have not received much coverage lately so it isn’t surprising that their likability is above his.
I bet we won’t see Democrats in the Senate saying they need to replace Harry Reid due to his low ranking. Al Gore didn’t do all that great on this either, but I doubt it will affect any of those pushing to draft Gore.
In the fall of 2003 Kerry was doing poorly in many polls, including trailing Al Sharpton. We saw what happened there. It is obviously an uphill battle for Kerry to win again in 2008, but polls such as this are totally irrelevant as to his chances.
Polls such as this may not be predictive, but they are insightful and provide a valuable glimpse into a candidate’s viability.
The money boys in Washington aren’t mentioning John Kerry, but they are mentioning John Edwards and Barack Obama — both of whom are seen as the anti-Hillary candidates for 2008.
Kerry’s out for 2008. It’s going to come down to Hillary v. Edwards, or Hillary v. Obama. She would be wise to select either of them as her Veep.
this is very unsubstantial: for sure kerry, given his pre-election fuck up, gets the most attention…
bad coverage is still coverage allright, but there is a limit…
They provide a glimpse at one particular moment–in this case following a period of bad publicity for Kerry. If we paid attention to such polls, Kerry would given up in 2003 when he trailed Al Sharpton.
Hillary is unacceptable to me as a President following her health care proposals. She might turn out to be unbeatable, but fighting to keep her out of the White House remains a worthwhile goal. Edwards has a single lackluster term in Congress and has shown no reason why he should be considered for the Presidency. Obama shows potential, but has too little experience so far. Up against such a field, Kerry is still in the game.
i think there is a sufficient reason to support hillary which outweights both policy worries and “family” worries: she is a woman. but thats also the main reason to support another candidate: she is the most likely winner of the primaries, but the most likely loser of the presidential election.
on kerry: he’s lost once. full stop. game over. why do we need to keep bringing up a loser?
p.s. just realized that the reply wasnt for me… to late:-)
We are still in 2006 right now far away from 2008. There are too many ifs to consider. It is unwise to write off any candidate right much less a candidate of the high caliber as Sen. Kerry. He is the most recognizable candidate of the bunch baring the former first lady. He is also the only candidate who has been fully vetted by the media, the dem activists and the voters. He has name recognition. He has the foreign policy experience. He is also as far as I know the only veteran in this group. Only he in this group knows what its like to set up campaign structures in 50 states. Only he knows what its like to be in 3 presidential debates.
He knows how grueling a campaign can be. He knows how close the scrutiny will be. This poll was about how warm do voters feel about certain people. That is not an indication of how they will do as a candidate or what kind of president they will make. We are in the middle of 2 wars. How warm we feel about a candidate or how much we like their personality is irrelevant. What will be relevant will be their stance on the issues. The Iraq war helped us win Congress back. It can also help us win the White House. Kerry is in a much stronger position than many realize.
If telling a bad joke can kill your chances of running for president then Bush’s career would have ended a long time ago. Other than Clinton, Kerry has no real competition in terms of raising money which right now is the most important activity for these candidates. The only people who think that Kerry was insulting the troops are the repugs and those who buy into that foolish argument that a veteran would insult the troops. It is too early to right off anyone. For now till the IA caucus which begins in January 2008 all these individuals will stay in. So many have yet to even announce that they are running.
It is too early and it would be a mistake to write off the juggernaut of all these candidates – Kerry. I hope he runs.
Yucca,
Actually, someone who went through the presidential-campaign-meat-grinder and lost and learned from their mistakes is a preferred candidate. Kerry admits what he did wrong and has worked to correct the mistakes and won’t let it happened again.
Kerry has done a lot for other candidates and has presented a platform of achievable goals. His Iraq game plan is probably the plan the Baker committee will present to Bush.
You may not like Kerry and that is your problem. Kerry has done more for the country and his party then any other candidate out there.
I have a lot of issues with Hillary. Her health care plan was unworkable but more importantly, she too has sold out to the highest bidder. Programs she supported as First Lady she is now against because of the campaign dollars that flowed. Her support for the current war direction dooms her.
Besides, I don’t want Bubba’s third term.
Edwards, Obama don’t have the experience. Vilsack sounds interesting to me. Clark may have learned something about domestic policies. Gore is not in the game as Gore’s money supporters left him with his blessing.
Clinton will not end up running the flawless campaign the repug MSM media expects her too. A key indication of that is the amount of money she needlessly spent on her senatorial campaign. A campaign she was expected to win handsomely. She’s lost her financial advantage much to the delight of other dem candidates. Many dems have problems with a Clinton campaign not because of who she is but because of her stance on issues of importance. Her stance on the Iraq war is troubling. Her inability to admit that her vote to give the president the authorization to go to war was wrong, is troubling.
Kerry had the courage to say that he was wrong to vote for the IWR. She no longer talks about universal health care. Kerry does and has a great plan, one that’s better than the secret one she came up with without the cooperation of the Congress much like Cheney’s secret energy task force. Her open chastisement of Kerry over an honest mistake when she very well knew he meant no disrespect against the troops is also worrisome. As is her lack of experience in the Senate-6 years is not enough. Governors will not do well in this race due to their lack of foreign policy experience.
As for Gore he doesn’t talk like someone who wants to be president. Candidates who want to run for the highest office don’t play games and don’t want to leave any doubt that they are running. How many times has he been to IA or NH? How much money did he raise for candidates? Time is running out for him. If he does want to run he needs to hurry. He’s been away from politics for too long.
yucca,
I see others have also responded regarding Kerry.
With regards to Hillary Clinton, my fears are different than yours. You appear to fear that she cannot win the general election. My fear, while admittedly she faces some obstacles, is that she can win.
This is what makes 2008 so interesting: is it’s wide open and anyone’s game.
Hillary v. Guiliani?
Hillary v. McCain?
Gore v. Guiliani?
Gore v. McCain?
Obama v. Guiliani?
Obama v. McCain?
What’s clear to me is, the Democrats have a far more interesting, diverse and qualified pool to draw from the Republicans. It’s ours to win or lose.
Probus,
Kerry was right to admit he was wrong on the IWR vote, but the more important thing is that he was right about Iraq from the beginning. While I wish he had voted no, a yes or no vote on the IWR is a poor way to judge one’s actual position on Iraq. In his Senate floor statement and articles published at the time, Kerry made it clear that he would not have gone into Iraq without real evidence that we were threatened by WND, and would only have gone to war as a last resort.
I’m not sure what to make of the amount that Hillary Clinton spent. On the surface it appears irrational, but I suspect that she has plenty of additional donations lined up and this won’t turn out to be meaningful.
Hillary has far more expereince in government than a typical single term Senator. The problem is not her lack of experience, but the poor manner in which she handled it when given a chance to exercise power under her husband.
Christopher,
Hillary, Gore, Obama, Guillani, and McCain might turn out to dominate the nomination battles, but what really makes things interesting is that nobody has a lock yet, and the winner might turn out to be a dark horse as Clinton and Carter started out.
Ron,
I can still recall it as if it were yesterday, the first time I heard the name “Gov. Bill Clinton.” It was the spring of 1991 and I was living in San Francisco. I had no idea who he was or inkling of what a powerful political force he would figure in my life.
Clinton was a dark horse and he seemed to come out of nowhere.
Christopher,
Back then there was a long list of potential candidate, but initially nobody looked like a clear winner.
Back then the limited media coverage to such details of politics left us with limited knowledge of such candidates. The blogoshere has resulted in us knowing at least something about all the potential candidates. People like Vilsack and Richardson are in a situation similar to Clinton’s but at least now we are getting some information on them and they are not total mysteries.
As much as governors can be formidable candidates in a time of war; with 2 wars going on the voters will be focused on foreign policy as regards the Iraq war. While it’s important to not write off any candidate without foreign policy experience it is good to keep in mind that foreign policy experience and experience in dealing with issues of national security will be vital to the final pick for the dem candidate. Of this group only Biden and Kerry have the most experience with their membership on the Foreign Relations Committee. However, Biden has not been able to raise the money that Kerry has been able to raise. Neither does he have his name recognition in middle America. Now that Biden will be the next chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee it’s possible that he might give up his White House aspirations. It remains to be seen if a lesser amount of foreign policy experience will hurt certain candidates.