Primary 2008, Part I -- Democrats: When Inevitability Isn't So...Inevitable

Read Part II -- The Republicans: In Search of a Front Runner, here.

It seems like we've been involved in the presidential campaign for a year, probably because we have been involved with the presidential campaign for a year. A lot has happened, intriguingly, even though no one has even voted yet. In a previous column I looked at the Democrats and handicapped them. As we get very close to Iowa and New Hampshire -- the two main events -- let's re-examine each of the candidates.

Hillary Clinton -- I cringed when her chief strategist and my polling colleague, Mark Penn, wrote a 350-page memo several months ago declaring her to be inevitable as the next president of the United States. It was the wrong message for a number of reasons.

First, it raised expectations way too high, so she was left running against herself and, secondly, it sounded horribly arrogant, which I still think it was. Number three, it misunderstood -- then and now -- the genuine anger that voters feel and their willingness to take it out on some of the best-known candidates. Finally, one thing I know about Iowa voters is that they don't like to be told whom they're going to vote for. It is not over, but let me restate here what I've been suggesting in columns, speeches, and media appearances for a couple of months -- Sen. Clinton could come in third in Iowa. Thus, arguably the best-known presidential candidate in American history has a ceiling of 25% to 29% in Iowa. Not likely to bring those numbers up, she has tried to go negative at Obama to bring his numbers down. It seems to be backfiring on her.

Barack Obama -- Hope and change seem to be what Americans are looking for. They are troubled by Obama's lack of experience and youth, but so far of any of the Democratic candidates, he has the strongest appeal among moderates and Independents in both the primaries and the general election. Will he get lost in the back and forth with Clinton and get damaged in the process? So far it doesn't look like it. Right now he's the odds-on favorite in Iowa and several early states that follow and his numbers seem to improve every day. Also, he does better against any of the leading Republicans than any other Democrat. He can survive a second-place showing in Iowa...if the winner is Edwards.

John Edwards -- He could gain the most from the Hillary-Obama drama. We know that John Edwards has honed a very popular message. It worked well for him in 2004, the notion of "Two Americas" that includes an alienated, anxiety-ridden middle class as well. Edwards is the best natural stump speaker of the three candidates and his audiences are large, and they like him. His message at the moment of economic populism is probably too hot for the general election, but he can modulate that should he secure the nomination. His biggest problem is a lack of money. Others have suggested that his other problem may be just gaining attention, as Hillary and Obama suck up the oxygen. However, Edwards has maintained his support in the low 20s, he knows this caucus system, and he is a very popular second choice among supporters of also-ran candidates who will not meet the 15 percent "viability" standard. So this remains very much a three-way race. Edwards does not have as much money as Clinton and Obama, but a victory in Iowa could help him enormously in that regard. He also has one of the best Internet fund-raisers in Howard Dean's strategist, Joe Trippi. And for those north of the Mason-Dixon Line who doubt the sincerity of his Southern drawl, the same was said of Lyndon Johnson, Jimmy Carter, and Bill Clinton -- the last three Democratic presidents.

Joe Biden, Bill Richardson, Chris Dodd, Dennis Kucinich, Mike Gravel -- We're starting to see some evidence of interest in Joe Biden's candidacy as Clinton fades a little. If Biden can jump up to 15 percent, he could gain more attention than the number-three finisher and bill himself as the seasoned candidate who can go the distance. The same can be said for Bill Richardson. None of the other candidates, Chris Dodd, Dennis Kucinich, and Mike Gravel, show any promise whatsoever.

But it's been a topsy-turvy year. Look for a few more topsys and turveys.

Read Part II -- The Republicans: In Search of a Front Runner, here.

Comments

[Nutcase]

350-page memo? What should I call my 287-page book?

[tbone99]

I think Huckabee will win th e Repug nomination - he's G. Bush who's a minister and doesn't hang out with that bad crowd .Evangelicals that would have sat out this election will decide to vote after all-
Because the evangelical vote just got a new lease on life ,the Dims are gonna have to do better than Hilary or Obama.They 've got to put a white man in the number one spot to get those wavering on the fence.Face it Hilary and Obama may be popular with the multi - cultural crowd that watches Oprah and loved Schindler's List but that leaves out the middle of the country important as far as electoral votes. Edwards, Dodd, Biden, Richardson( he may be risky for the anti - immigration firestorm that will be the Repug main ammunition this year) for the top spot with Hil or Obama # 2 and even that is risky.
the Repugs just received CPR with Huckabee-( and he's already taken on the leader of the Minutemen militia in preparation for the Mex bashing to come)

will the Dems blow it again?

[cloudy]

I have seen people put forward a number of polls that purport to show, at least in current polls, that EDWARDS does better against the leading GOP candidates than any of the other leading Democrats.

I personally think that, given close scrutiny, Obama would run much stronger (although it's not clear how media piling on and swiftboating would turn out w/him OR the other candidates)than the others over time; Edwards did NOT fare so strongly in the 04 campaign. And HRC is already well-known and widely disliked by about 40-50% of all voters, including MANY Democrats.

But still, I would be interested in what a professional polling analysis of the claims made about and on behalf of Edwards, at least based on (certain) current polls.

[eshalom]

Unfortunately, Mr. Zogby, you apparently haven't kept up with the latest polls, which show Clinton in a dead heat in Iowa with Obama, widening her lead in New Hampshire, and maintaining her double digit lead nationally over her rivals.

Your post is curiously slanted against Clinton. One has to wonder about your motives.

[woodpile]

Edwards is touting numbers/polls he says show him to be the only D beating all the Rs. No great surprise there.

After all, he is the white guy. The woman and the black guy will have to push the rock up the hill to win. But if not this year, then when?

I'm voting for Hillary but when the time comes I'll work as hard as can for that way overdue breakthough whether it's Hillary or Obama.

Enough with the white guys already.

[massimo1]

One question that's been on my mind a lot is this. If a large portion of democrat voters say that if Clinton is the nominee, they will not vote for her, is that just talk or could it really happen? When faced with the choice of taking the White House or suffering 4 more, probably even worse, years of another vile republican president, what would those ABC (anybody but clinton) democrats do? I am one of them, and I haven't decided. Part of me says, "Oh, I can't abandon America to the republicans", and part of me says, "America, you are getting what you asked for". Neither is a good choice. I believe that if the next president is a republican, America will never recover from the nightmare. If Clinton is our next president, she will be almost as bad for the nation. Republicans suck and so does Clinton.

[Researchguy66]

You know what would be fun...inst­ead of worrying about polls, try to imagine this...a room full of people standing in three corners and they're distributed about equally...

What do the HRC people do it Obama's ahead just slightly?
What do the Obama people do if HRC is ahead even slightly?

Will they hold the line even if means the competition wins?

I almost wish I were there to watch...

[lastams]

I must say that it is refreshing to see a post that mentions someone other than Clinton or Obama.
Not a single vote has been cast and already the media is telling us who will be elected.
Damn, might just as well let the pundits take a poll and do away with the process entirely.
At this point, it’s hard to tell if the polls are driving the news or the news is driving the polls.
God knows the issues seem to have vanished entirely.

[2LaneIA]

I see evidence of interest in Biden also, and I am in rural Iowa. He will be viable in my precinct, unless the number of caucus goers is substantially larger than it has ever been and they are all for one of the other candidates. Caucus math makes it impossible to count noses until caucus night.

[tommybones]

The "Nader Herd" should do what, exactly? Vote for the democrats? A party which has alienated the progressives with utter contempt and ridicule after riding them into Congressional power in 2006? I'd stay home before voting for the Democrats, and it's there own fault, not mine or any other self-respecting progressive. I'm tired of the anti-Nader crowd blaming others for the crimes of the GOP and mainstream democratic party, which are two peas in a corrupt corporate-ruled pod.

[BionicWoman]

Hillary isn't trying to get Iowa. Mr. Zogby needs to get on the ball. She gave up and is preparing for the general election. Smart move on her part. She'll chew him to pieces in a state where they do things the normal way. So they don't like her in Iowa - whoop de do. The rest of the country - the rest of the world likes her.

[SeaOats]

350 pages of inevitability? It must have cost Hillary's campaign a monetary fortune to produce that irresponsible rubbish. It certainly cost them any early support I may have been willing to give her. Hillary's probably shocked by how hard she's having to work. This nation is in a profound struggle to reverse the Bush/Cheney trauma - Bush's campaign was engineered to be inevitable too, and we see how well that worked out. No coronations for me, thanks.

IF Hillary does win the nomination, I'll vote for her as lesser of two evils. Anything but GOP in the White House. It would be a tremendous disappointment, however, to have her in the White House when fresh perspectives and new ideas are what we desperately need.

[JoAnnCr]

Rassmussen Reports consistently show it is John Edwards and not Barack Obama scoring the best in Match up contests with the Republicans. Here is their latest poll. Note that both Obama and Edwards tie with Giuliani but Obama loses to McCain whereas Edwards beats him handily. Note that Clinton also does well.

CNN's poll last week showed Edwards beating the Republicans better than any other Democratic candidate as well.

You should check your facts.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/favorables/election_2008_democratic_candidates_running_in_2008_presidential_election

[xrayman]

Mr. Zogby,
You don't seem impartial to the process when you use words like cringe.

I think your own bias is clouding your thinking.

[EinChicago]

There are only a few things that are truly "inevitable" in politics:
(1) The dems will lose the general election by a wide margin if they chose Barak Obama. That is inevitable.
(2) The rethugs will go into apoplexy if HRC wins the nomination and we will see all sorts of dirty smear tactics.
(3)The Nader herd will find some way to sabotage any chance of Dem victory and help the GOP, they always do.