With the Australian federal election done and dusted, psephological interest turns to the USofA, which is entering yet another presidential election year.
Election 2008
2008 is so far the most interesting election years of those I have followed. For the first time since 1952 (at the age of three, I had only a passing interest in the contending fortunes of Dwight D Eisenhower and Adlai E Stevenson II), neither the President nor the Vice President is a candidate for election. That means that both major political parties have reasonably open nominating seasons, with diverse fields of candidates from which to choose. It used to be reasonably common for there to be such open campaigns. In the previous century, in addition to 1952, there were open ballots in 1908, 1920 and 1928. This year, each party's roster of candidates has a few big names and a supporting cast of political nobodies and each has a different dynamic.
The Democrats appear to have three choices. John R Edwards is the traditional candidate, counter-intuitively trying to paint himself as being outside the Washington Beltway (despite the fact that he was John F Kerry's running mate in 2004 and has only recently left the Senate), but his main opponents are both genuinely non-traditional: Hillary Rodham Clinton is the first serious female candidate and Barack H Obama the first black candidate with a shot at the nomination. As I write this - in the gap between the Iowa Caucuses and the New Hampshire Primary - it beginning to look like Obama could surprise the better-organised Clinton team and take the nomination. It doesn't look like any of the other candidates will come into calculations, although New Mexico's Bill Richardson, a governor with Hispanic antecedents and some experience in both legislative and executive government, looked promising for a while. But he has made little impression nationally, and cannot seem to get traction against his three better-funded rivals. A few weeks ago I would have said that Hillary's experience (and the team of operatives working for her) would have made her a prohibitive favorite for the nomination, especially in the face of Obama's inexperience. But it's not quite working out that way. Obama's idealism (and his seeming ability to bring together independents, moderates and the Democrat base) seems to have hit a chord with voters in the smaller states, even those with overwhelmingly white populations. Surprisingly, perhaps, against a strong female challenger, he has garnered a large proportion of the female vote (Cath attributes this to his endorsement by Oprah Winfrey, who is able to mobilise a large cadre of mature women voters). Such support is very important because, as Amy Gardner has frequently noted, if women were the only voters, the Democrats would always be the majority party. Obama's popularity among core Democrat voters - blacks, women, college students and unionists - is a reward for his persistence and some sense of vision. He has emerged as the only candidate with such appeal. I was especially impressed with his victory speech after the Iowa Caucuses, where he stressed his resolve to confront the special interests and, particularly, the lobbyists (reflecting action he has already tried to initiate in the Senate), and emphasised his message of hope. Many Democrats worry that Hillary's 'unfavorables' will mean that she cannot win the general election, no matter who the Republicans nominate (although Romney's unfavorables are about as high as hers). Obama does not appear to have the same handicap - despite a block of voters who will never support him because of the melanin content of his skin. For all of the obvious (and persistent) racism inherent in the US soul, it is ironic that a black man looks more electable than a white woman (at least when that white woman is Hillary Clinton).
10-01-08: The New Hampshire Primary surprised many, with Hillary winning narrowly. Interestingly she did better this time with the female vote, although Obama easily won the votes of Independents who were voting as Democrats. Had Obama easily won the vote, as the polls predicted, he might have run the table. As it stands, with Edwards a distant third and Richardson hardly in the straight, it looks more than ever like a show-down on Super Tuesday will determine the future of what is shaping as a two-horse race.28-01-08: Hillary has narrowly won Nevada and Obama easily won South Carolina. Since Florida is a meaningless, 5 February - with its plethora of big states - will be incredibly important. Hillary should win enough there to take a lead but, as the Democrats award delegates proportionately in each state, the contest may go to the convention floor; especially if Edwards stays in the race through to the convention, drawing white votes from Hillary and holding enough delegates to determine who will win. We'll see on 5 February - after has been written.
31-01-08: Hillary's means-nothing win in Florida - another state penalised by the DNC for running its primary too early - has led to Edwards leaving the race. He'll probably endorse Obama but I think his exit helps Hillary because there will be less splitting of the unionist vote. On the other hand, the glamor of the Kennedys, some of whom (Caroline and Edward) have come out in support of Obama, likening him to JFK (I trust that he doesn't have similar medical problems, nor reliance on regular doses of Novocain or amphetamines), will help offset some of the glamor that Bill gives Hillary. On the other hand three of Bobby's kids have endorsed Hillary so it may be a wash.
On the Republican side, things are even more confusing. The putative front-runner, Rudolph W L Giuliani, is not making much of a run in the early primary and caucus states, holding his fire until the larger, industrial states vote. This tactic is dangerous, as one of his opponents may emerge from the early ballots with enough momentum to blunt Giuliani's bid. The three leading others are: John S McCain III, Michael D Huckabee and W Mitt Romney. Romney is a Mormon who has changed positions on leading social questions (his religion seems to be more of a problem than his flip-flops) but he has a large enough personal fortune to be able to spend to stay in the race. McCain has been around forever and has a national presence that the others lack. He is, however, unpopular with the party's conservative base and is tarred with his support for the Iraq adventure, which is unpopular in the country. Huckabee is the one 'nobody' to emerge in the early running, the plucky insurgent candidate. He is a former governor of Arkansas, ironically born in the same small town as Bill Clinton, a one-time Baptist minister and very appealing to the Republican base - the "family values" folk who take the Bible literally and are so pro-life that they need a stockpile of automatic weapons. But both McCain and Huckabee have much less money than Romney or Giuliani and need to keep winning primaries to provide oxygen to their candidacies. But it's hard to get enthusiastic about any of these grey old men, especially as they will need to bend to the will of the religious right to win sufficient support come November.
20-01-08: The Michigan, Nevada and South Carolina votes seem to have reinforced Giuliani's error. McCain and Romney have had wins, while Rudy and Huckabee have been going out backwards. Both need strong performances in Florida before Super Tuesday. But Rudy has now dropped from first to fourth in national polls and is behind in states like New York and California that he needs to win. Like the Democrats, the Republicans could be a two-horse race by 6 February: McCain v Romney. The head-to-heads show that McCain is ahead of Hillary and in a statistical tie with Obama; Romney is well behind both.31-01-08: Florida has confirmed Giuliani's incredible miscalculation. Huckabee might stick for a while but it's now McCain v Romney, With many 5 February races being winner-takes-all, McCain should wrap it by then.
An even wilder card in the Republican race is Texas representative Dr Ronald E Paul, who is a genuine maverick; and a bit of a worry. Throughout his career, he has advocated libertarian positions on a number of issues, meaning that he is somewhat to the right of most candidates on questions like gun control and federal spending, but way to the left of even Democrats on questions such as the war in Iraq. His publications (whether he wrote them or was ghosted is a moot point) have been cited as promoting racism, anti-Semitism and gay-bashing, and some of his economic theories are looney tunes. And there's the fact that he is evangelically 'pro-life' while simultaneously opposing any form of gun control. But you can't help a sneaking admiration for someone who is so eccentric that he would suggest, as an alternative to war, authorising the President to grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal targeting specific terrorists. (Letters of Marque and Reprisal were the legal fiction that enabled European monarchs to coopt privateers, ie pirates, to prey on enemy shipping in international waters throughout the Mercantilist Era.) Paul ran as the Libertarian Party candidate for President in 1988 but is, this year, trying for the Republican nomination. He and his team have used 'viral marketing' through the Internet to publicise his campaign and he has a huge presence on YouTube. He has raised millions through small donations and has a cadre of young turks who get out the vote for him. While he has lots of name recognition now, he is polling at less than 5 per cent nationally (which places him sixth in the Republican race) and he was excluded (by the sponsor Fox News) from the last candidates' debate before the New Hampshire Primary. He cannot win the nomination but Paul provides more entertainment than the rest of the Republican field combined.
It's not easy to predict winners at this stage - although you'd have to favor whoever wins the Democrat nomination to win the general election in November ... unless it's Hillary, in which case all bets are off. In any event, no matter who the nominees end up being, the possibility exists of a strong third-party candidate. One such candidate could be NY Mayor Michael R Bloomberg, who has enough money to buy the presidency, especially in the light of the current unpopularity of both the Republican president and the Democrat congress. Bloomberg was originally a registered Democrat, he then won the mayoralty as a Republican, and has since resigned from that party as well, classing himself now as an Independent. If the major party candidates are not inspiring, he could enter as a compromise candidate with enough support to win in the Electoral College or send the contest to the House of Representatives. Paul will likely be nominated by the Libertarian Party, whether or not he wins the Republican nomination. He has much wider name recognition now than he did in 1988 and will attract a lot of crackpot support. Such possibilities add some piquancy to what looks like being a fascinating year in US politics. While the field lacks the intellectual fire of a Matthew V Santos or a Josiah E Bartlet, both come-from-behind insurgency candidates who stressed an issued-based substantive approach to presidential politics in their respective campaigns on The West Wing, real life could supply some drama that is just as interesting.
First written: January-February 2008
return to Raves/Essays index