The Real Primaries: None of the Above vs. All of the Above

Here's the big difference in the presidential primary contests: with less than a month to go, Republicans favor None-of-the-above while most Democrats could vote for All-of-the-above.

Polls show that Republicans are largely dissatisfied with their field since there's no Reagan or even Bush among them -- someone who's reliably conservative and combines electability, resources and charm:

*"Frontrunner" Rudy Giuliani has finally, officially lost his Teflon, falling by a third from his peak. And it's easy to understand why. When you combine the scandals of Bernard Kerik, taxpayer funds to provide police security for his mistress, a client list that includes the Emir of Qatar whose interior minister harbored 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Muhammad in the 1990s -- and a habit of serial lying according to a carefully sourced New York Times front page piece -- he's shedding voters as fast as Huckabee shed pounds. "Rudy the Rock" seems to be sinking like a stone.

*Romney too is in steep decline in the first caucus state (despite outspending rivals by 10-1 or more) because he's coming across as a Bob Forehead, standing for nothing other his own self-financed ambition. Even his vaunted I'm-a-Morman-but speech was full of contradictions and evasions: he said there should be no religion test for president, only a religious test-- i.e., it's ok to discriminate against those whose "religion" is secularism, not Mormonism. He tried to link himself to John Kennedy but is really the opposite -- the Massachusetts Democrat said in 1960 that religion should be a private matter ("I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute"), while the Massachusetts Republican said that "freedom requires religion." Huh?

*Huckabee appears to be on his way to being the Pat Robertson of 2008, 20 years after that wackadoddle also pitched his candidacy to the outsized influence of Evangelical Protestants in the one state where it can work -- Iowa. One doubts that a man who doesn't believe in evolution can evolve to other states outside of a few thousand caucus-goers who believe far more in the Bible than the Constitution. And Huckabee's personal intervention to help parole a rapist who went on to murder two women is an incident worse than Willie Horton.

*Thompson is the most overrated big man since the Cardiff Giant hoax took upstate New York and then the country by storm in 1869. His delusions of adequacy are being belied daily.

*McCain's impulsively reasoned approaches on campaign finance, immigration, terrorism and global warming would normally be disqualifying in a party that resents reality-based policies... but perhaps not in 2008 given this flawed field. So McCain's moment may be coming back by the process of eliminiation since he hasn't hired Mexicans to mow his lawn or cops to chauffeur his mistress. Is he the Golden Oldie?

No wonder the latest AP poll has these five candidates bunched together at 26% to 11%. Presumably someone will be the Republican nominee but it's hard to see who. Newt's starting to look good.

The Democratic field is entirely different. At the risk of ridicule, I look at them like Jack Valenti used to describe movies -- he never saw one that he didn't like. When has there been such a strong presidential primary line-up? (I'm neutral as the head of Air America Radio.)

Clinton is unarguably knowledgeable, tough, resilient and deeply experienced. Obama is truly inspirational, smart, personable and possibly tranformational. Edward's advocacy skills and meta-message on economic justice+special interest politics is probably the strongest of all the Democrats. And the so-called second-tier is first rate -- it's hard to come up with candidates more versed than Biden, Dodd, Richardson. Most Democrats can imagine any of these three as president more easily than Republicans can envision any of their top-tier candidates actually winning the White House.

If the primary process were a team sport, with all the Democrats squaring off against all of the Republicans, it would be akin to the New England Patriots playing Amherst. But because in the end it'll be one-on-one, the score won't be 53-7 but presumably something closer to 53-47.

Ironically this Democratic luxury of riches has partly contributed to much pettiness and crankiness among the progressive candidates. Just like it's said that there's nothing more bitter than academic politics since so little is at stake, the real differences among the eight Democratic candidates -- surely now more than pre-Iraq -- is so comparatively small that they are hyped by one or another rival in order to gain marginal advantage. There are few serious policy gaps among them comparable to the McGovern-Scoop Jackson struggle over Vietnam in 1972 (remind me again, how many brigades does Clinton want to draw down monthly versus Edwards?).

Conclusion: the early prediction that we'd have de facto nominees shortly after super-duper Tuesday February 5 may be out-of-date. Because the Republican field is so weak and the Democratic field so strong -- and if no one contender wins his/her first couple of contests -- it's now possible that neither party will settle on one breakout candidate by then. Instead we could see a war of attrition into the Spring among those candidates who have the money and determination to keep going.

Comments

[Openeyes]

At the broadest level, I agree in general with your assessment that Reps are generally unenthusastic about their candidates and that Dems could mostly live with any of their candidates winning the White House, but that's not saying much, and you analysis is rather shallow.

The fact that the Republican field is relatively lackluster certainly won't drive Republicans to vote for Dem candidates. They may not be overjoyed with their "boys" but they're not going to chuck them over the side and vote Democrat, so dissatisfaction means little at this point. Further, Huckabee may be emerging as the "Reagan" or "Bush" in the sense he is the only one remotely close to capturing the "values" vote the Republicans value so highly. He is the only one that really comes close to the social stance of conservative Republicans, which probably explains his recent gains in Iowa.

On the other hand, you downplay differences between Dem candidates, and frankly, you're Hillary bias is a mile wide - "deeply experienced"? With what? Biden and Dodd both have far more experience than she does as a Senator, and Richardson has the deepest resume of all of them, holding positsions in the Congress, Cabinet, and as a Governor, so "deeply experienced" is just a sop for Hillary - she's a one term Senator.

There is actually quite a bit of difference between the Dem candidates, especially at the first/second tier break. "First tier" candiates basically are Bush-lite on Iraq and a host of other issues from constitutional protections to trade. They'll have us stay in Iraq for a long time to come. The first tier candidates have their good points, but they are all third tier progressives or worse.

In contast, the "second tier" candidates are all first rate progressives, and that is what is going to make the race on the Dem side interesting, because the base has become increasingly progressive (sorry, sir, but Hillary is NOT a progressive).

The real fight will be on the Dem side - is it possible the nominee could actually be decided at the convention, not super Tuesday?

[NABNYC]

The Republican candidates are all pretty much extreme right-wing ideologues, religious fanatics, thieves, liars. But they've each got their own supporters. Presumably the same people who still support Bush/Cheney want someone similar as the replacement. So the basic criteria for a Republican candidate is that they must be accomplished thieves, liars, and advocates of mass murder, kidnapping, and torture. Luckily, there are quite a few Republicans who fit that bill.

But saying that the Democratic candidates are strong? I could not disagree more.

Honestly, it's like the Republicans are running Ted Bundy. All the Democrats have to do is say "I'm not a serial killer." But "our" candidates refuse to say that. They secretly want to be serial killers too.

So they come out and support war. And demand more wars, more death, more suffering, more killing of brown people. They love torture and, according to the not-yet-disputed reports, they demanded that the Bush Regime torture harder. Go! Kill! MaimMaimMaim!!

Importing workers to take American's jobs? Yeah, the Democrats like that too. Expanding Nafta? Go team, fight fight fight. Health care? The Democrats will force (under threat of imprisonment?) Americans to buy overpriced health insurance from the same insurance industry that gives hundreds of thousands of dollars to politicians in bribes. Global warming? They may have heard of it, but they don't mention it.

The only Democratic candidate in the top 3 who has taken a principled position on anything is John Edwards. Unfortunately Clinton and Obama are both DLC-sponsored Democrats, and neither is willing to do anything to rock that cushy boat.

So it's an error to say the Democratic candidates are strong. It would be accurate to say the criminal classes in the U.S. (the rich) have given most of their money to the Democrats, so they likely will succeed in buying the election. But strong they are not.

[RevMetheus]

No, both side's frontrunners suck pretty equally.

None of the Above all around.

Kucinich for actual substance in presidency.

[Qbear]

Minneapolis PLASTER my old home town city with this image to greet the RNC convention

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2006-8/1210139/CraigRomney.jpg

I may go back to MPLS visit just for the laughs

[GuiltyByStander]

Biden is the guy that moderate Republicans and independents can deal with and that's the only way this country is going to pull out of a stall.

Biden gets stuff done. Here's a quote from "The Hill" today:

Biden-Brownback Iraq measure clears hurdle

The amendment’s September Senate vote was a triumph for Sen. Joseph Biden (D-Del.), the lead sponsor of the proposal. His language attracted the support of 26 Republicans as well as Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.), one of Biden’s chief rivals for the Democratic presidential nomination. Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) missed the vote, but his office indicated support for the measure.

---------------

[Qbear]

The BEST ad promotion Democrats could have for their Convention in NYC to heal rifts, would be to blanket the city with Images of Cheney and caption them with "THE NIGHTMARE IS ALMOST OVER. Rove's photo, Rumsfeld, Gonzales, Abramoff, Libby, Larry Craig, Ted Haggard would also back up the nightmare scenario. It also makes the RNC cadidate look insignificant, who ever it is. Arriana's posters listing th sins and sinners of the last 8 years would amplify the message.

[Qbear]

MY community, (LGBT) are working through two of our biggest organizations Stonewall Democrats and Human Rights Campaign to have the MOST LGBT delegates in History in 08. I suggest we form UNCOMMITTED sub groups at every caucus, let the candidates WORK for our delegates for a CHANGE. Like a Hate Crimes Bill Blue Dog Democrats don't cowardly kill in committee. An INCLUSIVE ENDA. Most Americans think gays/lesbians already have non discrimination in housing and employment...WE DON'T.
Other Democratic constituencies like Latino/as, Greens, and anti Iraq war activist might want to also form UNCOMMITTED subgroups.
It's going to be a long time from Super Tuesday until the Conventions and BUYER'S REMORSE will be kicking in overtime.

[ChristopherLib]

I agree in essence. However we have to think about who will be the best leader and who can best seal up the general election. I will vote for whoever the Democratic nominee is. I will also support them with money, and possibly volunteer. But if Obama is the nominee I worry, both on his electability and his ability to get things done once in office. The country is in sore need of repair. With Hillary or Edwards or Biden I don't see much chance at all of us losing the general. Plus, certainly with Hillary or Biden, and probably Edwards, we have someone more prepared of taking over and leading day one. Fellow Democrats think hard on leadership and electability.

[FreeMind]

Mark, I agree with almost all of what you say in this post. I think you are one of the big progressive voices out there.

On a tangential note: Please, Please bring back Sam Seder and Morning Sedition back full time. We don't need balance in radio. We need unabashed liberal/progressive voices on radio to partially balance the big right wing radio apparatus.

[saxmaniac]

Mr. Green, enjoyed your analysis, and so far the trolls have been quiet. BIG question: when will Air America come to a Boston station?
Even though the last go-around meant lots of static and lost signals, how can you ignore the most progressive market in the country? And don't tell me you don't need Boston. Boston needs Air America. Now.

[Qbear]

If super Tuesday doesn't show a clear winner in either Party, the Conventions will be all the more important. The RNC convention in Minneapolis will be a JOKE, Larry Craig will be on the lips of EVERY late night comic.
The Democratic Convention in NYC will look like a battlefield, the anger on the Left building for 8 years, it could look like Chicago '68 on STEROIDS, if half the party looks shut out.

[ReasonIsMyReligion]

Forget the parties. AMERICA would benefit from wide open conventions. I can't remember the last time a party convention had horse-trading, party platform plank wrangling and so forth.

Early lock-up only helps the eventual lead-dog -- at the expense not only of the rest of the pack, but the citizenry.

Nothing against NH and Iowa, but they have no business picking our nominees for the Presidency.

[TRUE BLUE AMERICAN]

As an independant conservative- I think most of the dem candidates are capable and good people but they are liberal, social progressives that lack the belief that the United states is the best of the best and that the problems of the world aren't all our fault.For these factors I will be unable to vote for them, but will follow the field closely.

[Researchguy66]

I like the notion that the early primaries might not matter as much but I doubt it's true.

I think we'll see presumptive nominees from both parties before Florida. Any poll before the Iowa caucus is useless. There's no such thing as a "likely caucus-goer" and a web or telephone poll can't capture the shopping experience that is a Democratic caucus.

Iowa is going to give a big bounce to whoever wins that will carry into NH. If NH is confirmatory of IA, NV and SC don't matter and it's pretty clear who will win. If NH isn't confirmatory, NV and SC will be. Florida will go with the consensus.

I've been predicting Edwards and Romney on that basis for a long-time now. Democrats are a little more up in the air than Republicans as people are already choosing dance-partners. The DK's among the Repubs are just waiting to be told who to vote for.

[jmpurser]

The Democratic problem as I see it is they've only got one Democrat running and he has no chance of winning. I'm going for an either/or/both of Richardson-Edwards myself but I'd really prefer a REAL democrat.