Mostly rational politics, with occasional rants about how a few crazy Republicans are ruining the country.
Monday, January 24, 2005
The Jaker's 2008 Presidential Nomination Odds
I'm introducing a new feature on the site today: my 2008 Presidential Nomination Odds.
Explanation: This is not a list of who I'm rooting for, but rather this list reflects the likelihood that these people win their party's nomination for President in 2008. Some are fairly obvious choices and rankings, others are me going out on a limb a little bit. Factored in are statements the people have made about whether they will or will not run (Colin Powell would be much higher except he's said he won't run), and other factors, including whether or not they are legally allowed to be president (hence Arnold's 25:1 that could drop quickly if the Amendment gains traction).
The odds will appear permanently in the column on the right. I will update them on a semi-regular basis, as well as when any news or rumor comes out that compels me to make an adjustment. Anytime I post an update I will make a blog entry highlighting the change - that way you readers and I will be able to track these all the way through the next 3.7 years to see how accurate I am.
Let me know what you think in the comments.
Note: Presidential Odds are purely for speculative enjoyment. The Jaker is not soliciting or accepting any wagers based on these odds.
posted by CB @ 10:55 AM
Oh, the list of odds. Purely speculative, but I love to speculate. Here are the ways in which I disagree with you, gentle Colin. Let us count them:
1. Kerry, Gore, and Daschle have much less chance of getting the nomination than your odds indicate. It used to be that people could run for president, lose, and then come back again (Nixon and Reagan, for example), but the super-saturation of media coverage of each presidential campaign now effectively prevents that from happening. We've seen Gore and Kerry by themselves on the national stage, and neither one has galvanized us enough to win (well, that's true for Kerry at least). Ditto for Wes Clark. Only Kerry still has a political career; I don't think one can win as a mere citizen. Daschle would meet the same problems that Kerry had against Bush — as a legislator, he can be seen as wishy-washy, and he could easily be labeled as an obstructor because of his use of the filibuster. He's not seen as tough enough for the Senate; how would he make it to the White House? 2. I think Rendell, Ford, and Warner should be given better odds. Rendell and Warner have a good shot because they're governors of moderate states, Ford because he seems uncompromising and equally middle-of-the-road. Can you imagine an Obama/Ford ticket in...what, 2012? 2016? Especially if Obama heads back and serves as governor of Illinois... 3. You leave two women totally off the list who should receive consideration (maybe three): Barbara Boxer is raising her profile, as you said in most recent post; Kathleen Sibelius, as a Democrat, became governor of Kansas; Janet Napolitano has the same thing going for her in Arizona. 4. On the Republican side, I think Gingrich is much too high. Too much baggage — I don't think people see the Republican majority in Congress as his doing so much as Clinton fouling up with the health care thing, especially since Gingrich was chased from office a few years later. Jeb Bush is a stronger possibility. 5. Pataki and Romney are far likelier to run, though it'd be interesting to see how the South might warm to them, as essentially Yankee governors. I have to admit, even I would consider Schwarzenegger if the amendment went in his favor (I don't think it will, though). 6. Powell, Cheney, Rove, and Quayle shouldn't even be on this list — there's no possibility that any of them will run, in my mind. Condy Rice, on the other hand, could very easily have better odds than you give her. Thanks.
Dear anonymous New Hampshirite (I believe):
First off, you pointed out a couple people I left off that I shouldn't have - Sebelius, Napolitano, and Boxer. Thanks. They'll all be very long odds when I add them. Second, you obviously picked up on a couple of my "out on a limb" picks. Probably the primary one is Gore. When/if he announces he is running, I will move him ahead of John Edwards as the Dem favorite, perhaps to some controversy (or as much controversy as can be on a site with ~50 readers). Don't forget: he and Kerry did not have the same experience. First, Gore won. Second, he does not have the flip-flopping problem. Third, he's become much less wooden in the last 4 years and now talks with real conviction about "values" and "principles" that we should uphold. If that guy runs for President, he'll have my full support. You're probably right on Kerry and Daschle, but their name recognition and connection to the big $ puts them on the list like it or not. I think you're being idealistic with Rendell and Warner - I know you love Ed. But they both have to show how they are going to compete with the national figures (Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Edwards, etc.). I don't think any of them will have the romance with the grassroots that Dean had. Gingrich I think will surprise. I think "reds" love him. As for my longshots - long odds are long odds. I don't want anyone to take me by surprise. Thanks for the comment.
I'm new. Where is Joe Leiberman? My dream team run-off is between Leiberman and McCain.
Lieberman has no chance. I don't think he'll run again after his showing in 2004. There's even a movement at DailyKos to run a Democrat against him in the primary for Senate re-election, because he's such a centrist.
Well, my point of view, as an independent disuaded by the way republicans are going these days, is that if the Dems want to pick up independants and even get back mainstream democrats, they will have to find a centrist. Check out Hillary's latest backing moves; she's moving to the right with even increasing speed! I say pick Leiberman.