A wide-open field

June 12, 2006

Maybe it’s because I find it easier to deal with Bush’s presidency by looking ahead to its conclusion, but I’m frequently preoccupied with 2008 speculation. With this in mind, this is a [tag]poll[/tag] that has quickly captured the political world’s attention.

Former U.S. Sen. [tag]John Edwards[/tag] of North Carolina leads a list of potential Democratic presidential candidates while [tag]Iowa[/tag] Gov. [tag]Tom Vilsack[/tag] holds fourth place, trailing Edwards by 20 points in an early test of support among likely Iowa caucus participants.

A new Iowa Poll conducted for The [tag]Des Moines Register[/tag] shows that Edwards, the runner-up in the Iowa Democratic caucuses two years ago and a frequent visitor to the state since then, is the choice of 30 percent of Iowans who say they are likely to take part in the January 2008 caucuses.

U.S. Sen. [tag]Hillary Clinton[/tag] of New York follows on Edwards’ heels with 26 percent in the Iowa Poll. Experts say it’s the first poll showing anyone besides Clinton as the preferred Democrat in the race for the White House.

U.S. Sen. [tag]John Kerry[/tag] of Massachusetts, who used his victory in the 2004 caucuses as a springboard to the Democratic presidential nomination that year, is a distant third in the [tag]Iowa Poll[/tag] with 12 percent.

Considering that it’s his home state, Vilsack’s presidential bid just suffered a fairly significant setback. If he’s generating 10% support in Iowa after two successful terms as the state’s governor, Vilsack will have a tough time convincing donors that he’s a top-tier candidate, at least in the short term.

Vilsack aside, polls like this one shake up the conventional wisdom considerably. Edwards has been to Iowa five times this year, and it’s clearly paying off. Hillary Clinton is a party favorite and can generate significant support without multiple appearances (she hasn’t been to Iowa since ’03), but the notion that she, or anyone, can win the nomination in a walk just isn’t realistic.

Only 18 months until the caucuses….

Speaking as a Iowa Dem, who actually participated in this poll, I can tell you on the Vilsack item: he was a good governor, but many think he just does not have what it takes to win the nomination little lone the presidency. Yes – you can accuse IA Dems looking for a candidate that we think can take back the WH. But – do not pay too much attention to these polls in IA now – or even weeks up to the caucuses. Remember everyone in the media was saying a Dean victory was all sealed up….then Kerry won.

  • Edwards Obama 2008! Young, smart, good looking. A positive and optimistic for the future.

    Above all the Democratic nomination process must be about personal skills and attitude all promoting a similar platform. We can win in 2008 but we cannot form the quadrannual circular firing squad during the primary season.

  • Beth,

    Many thanks for the “on the ground” perspective. These early polls are not usually worth much, but I was wondering why Vilsack scored so poorly.

  • I agree with Beth, this is too early to mean much, although it surely is good news for Edwards. Candidates like Warner (unless he foolishly adopts a ‘skip Iowa’ strategy) still have plenty of time and cash to play here.

    The Vilsack bit is not surprising. He is well liked here, but last week’s primaries were a sure sign that his residual political strength is limited. It also appears likely he will have a veto overriden in a special legislative session; that will further expose his weaknesses. I think most Iowans, and particularly most Dems, would agree he is a nice and decent guy who has done a good job as Governor. He just lacks that spark, charisma, or whatever it is that makes someone seem legit Presidential material. At a party event last week most people I spoke with seemed to think he was running for VP. Also, all of us in Iowa know about his photo wearing a Winnie the Pooh costume (and a Friar Tuck costume, and a circus ringleader costume) that is so rich in negative ad potential it really kind of rules him out.

    The only reason I give much credence to the Edwards part of the poll is that it does not stand alone — it is consistent with his performance in the caucuses, he has a lot of allies on the ground in both the Culver for Governor and Braley for Congress campaigns, and he has been investing the time here.

  • Vilsack who?

    Big media has been cramming Hillary down my throat 24/7.

    Edwards? He is a weenie. Lacks gravitas. And uses the dirty “p” word (poverty) too much. Yucky yucky “p” word.

    Big media doesn’t want him either.
    He ain’t going to sell papers.

    Looks like it is you Hillary.
    You go girl.
    Who you sexing with anyway?
    And how often?
    Pagan?
    Whore?
    Liberal?
    Lesbian?

    Enquiring minds… they just want to know.

  • Zeitgeist –

    I totally forgot about the Winnie the Pooh photo – how very true. Not to mention Mrs. V’s hat selections. He is a great guy – but just not a national type candidate, as you state.

  • Whatis it with people who say that “Hillary Clinton is a party favorite”? Yeah, she’s a Beltway consultant class favorite and the media’s preferred candidate. But the party’s? That’s doubtful.

  • I think this is the reason why third parties with the Democratic philosophy always pop up. The top tiers are closed off and blind. Who cares if the top four contains people who can’t win nationally or in their home states. Winning is for losers!

    I think instead of saying “We can do better,” we should be asking “Can’t we do better?”

  • Barring a 180° by Gore, I’d go with Edwards. He brings the soul of the 20th century Democratic Party into the 21st century, and has no illusions about being “Republican Lite”. His issues resonate with the concerns of most Americans.

  • Part of the equation of whether a Dems makes it to the White House is who will be the opponent. The Repubs have a weak field and in the lesser of two evils scenario a host of Dems could be the next prez. McCain? Too old, to wishy-washy and too desperate. Newt? Too has-been. Frist? …You’ve got to be kidding.

  • Ed,

    His issues resonate with the concerns of most Americans.

    With one glaring exception: national security. As much as I dislike it, the reality is that a significant chunk of the critical middle 30% (those that don’t automatically vote Democrat or Republican’t) really are single issue voters. And for a big chunk of them that single issue is driven by fear. Think back to one of the most revered Dem Presidents, Jack Kennedy. Correct me if I’m wrong but didn’t he run to the right of his GOP opponent on national security matters? Ultimately, Kerry was unable to connect with these voters on this issue. Yes, he ran a poor campaign and stumbled in lots of other ways, but the polls clearly show that a significant chunk of the electorate believed W was more credible on national security matters. Why they believed that, I’m just not sure given the track record.

    hence, my belief that the best ticket is Clark/Edwards. Clark has unassailable national security credentials and this ticket would position Edwards well for taken the reigns in 2016. Here’s to 16 years of Dem stwewardship in the White House!

  • Petorado, you’re forgetting George Allen. He’s a real threat. If he gets the Republican nomination, he could easily trounce a Democratic opponent, especially one with a milquetoast record and/or the personality of plywood. Allen appeals to Joe Sixpack, and, unfortunately, in politics, perception is everything. We must not count our chickens . . .

  • petorado–Before you go dissing the Repug candidates, remember that W was (arguably) selected twice. There is no one too lame to be pResident of the United States, apparently. That said I agree with Edo–a Clark/Edwards ticket might be winner.

  • POTUS is not an entry level job. Carter, who even had prior executive experience, showed what happens when the POTUS is not familiar enough/capable enough on the political side of governing and working with other branches. Ike is not considered one of the great presidents, nor is Grant — and in any event it is a vastly new political world since ’60 or even ’74; I do not consider General a predicate position for POTUS. Clark has really not shown me anything to suggest he is ready for this. I like my Presidents to have been Governors or Senators, almost any elected office, before thinking (arrogantly) they can go from never answering to a voting public to being POTUS. Let Clark be VP, perhaps, but put someone who has actually done this type of thing before at the top of the ticket.

  • Clark-Edwards would be an intriguing ticket, but Clark’s profile has dimmed considerably since ’04. Also, keep in mind that unless Iraq is miraculously resolved within the next 18 months, it — and not “security” — will be the overriding issue. Perhaps Edwards-Clark might be a more successful ticket, as Clark’s presence could likely assauge security-concerned voters.

    In the end, though, it probably won’t matter; the party bosses will shove Hillary Clinton down our throats, even if her antagonism level is such it precludes her from winning.

  • I like my Presidents to have been Governors or Senators, almost any elected office, before thinking (arrogantly) they can go from never answering to a voting public to being POTUS.

    Respectfully, I disagree. I am unhappy about the way Bush and Reagan acted in the White House, and yet they meet your criteria. I believe success involves more than just being elected in the past. Clark has certainly run a large, quite political, organization called NATO. Moreover, what’s important to me is the policy proscriptions the candidate espouses and, yes, the electability of that candidate. Clark passes both those tests for me.

    Clark-Edwards would be an intriguing ticket, but Clark’s profile has dimmed considerably since ’04.

    True, but Clinton was essentially no where in 1990 so I don’t see this as an insurmoutable barrier. And keep in mind, he delivered a “memorable” address at the 1988 Dem convention, so it wasn’t like he was noone and thus had a low profile to start.

    Also, keep in mind that unless Iraq is miraculously resolved within the next 18 months, it — and not “security” — will be the overriding issue.

    I think you have misread the 30% who don’t vote reliably partisan. I believe that in their view, Iraq and National Security are intertwined. Whether or not that is based in reality (their perception) appears to be irrelevant.

    In the end, though, it probably won’t matter; the party bosses will shove Hillary Clinton down our throats, even if her antagonism level is such it precludes her from winning.

    And the likelihood of this being 100% accurate is truly worrisome.

  • Gen. Wes Clark is the one candidate with actual experience in international relations/politics. Considering the utterly screwed up condition of the US’s relations with the entire world, this is important. This guy is totally plugged in to security and defense, plus he has worked with huge bureaucracies in several situations.

    I want Gore and I hope we can convince him to run, but my next choice is Clark. Both demonstrate leadership, which is going to be needed in the dark days that W is handing us. Gore/Clark is a great ticket, as is Gore/Obama and Clark/Obama.

    Unlike most lefty commenters, I don’t have this psychopathic wingnut hatred of Hillary Clinton. She’s not my first choice for Pres, and is pretty far down the list, but I think she’s a decent person and a better legislator than most. Don’t like her? Don’t vote for her in a primary. We shouldn’t regurgitate the wingnut talking points about ANY Democrat.

    I wasn’t impressed with Edwards the last time around, and am even more tepid about Warner. Too much blandness designed to not offend anyone. I’d vote for Dr. Dean before either of these two, but I have no qualms about voting for either of them as the party’s choice.

    In the end, I am hard pressed to name a viable Democrat who isn’t head and shoulders better than anything the Republicans can offer, even the candidates I’m not really high on. Don’t bash fellow Democrats – talk up the ones you like. Don’t do the Republicans’ work for them.

    fercryinoutloud

  • I’m still wondering why in 2008 we are still relying on Iowa to determine the gold standard.

  • I’m with Vincent…Edwards/Clark could be big. Edwards has the personal magnetism and the right kind of message (for us social-progressive types) that could definitely sway the “values voters” into voting Democrat.
    Clark has the military cred and an approachability that should appeal to everyone.
    But what do I know? I voted for Kerry and look where that got us!

  • In the end, I am hard pressed to name a viable Democrat who isn’t head and shoulders better than anything the Republicans can offer, even the candidates I’m not really high on. Don’t bash fellow Democrats – talk up the ones you like. Don’t do the Republicans’ work for them.

    what fercryinoutloud said.

  • I’m assuming this was a general poll in Iowa. Be interesting to see what a poll of likely caucusers would bring about. I’m guessing more of them follow political blogs and would be drawn to several of the currenly less well-known candidates.

    Doesn’t look good for Vilsack, though.

    Oh, and I’m another who believes Clark is by far the best choice both strategically — as likely to get into office — and in terms of his likelihood of actually making a progressive agenda happen.

    Remember what he’s been criticizing most harshly about the war — the lack of planning for what comes after you “win.” It’s no wonder he’s been campaigning so hard for Dems these last several years — he’s going to need a Democratic Congress to get his (and our) goals accomplished.

  • Just been over to tpmcafe and I see that the poll actually was of likely caucus participants. I should have realized that was the reason why HIlary wasn’t so high on the list.

    • Comments are closed.