My first diary on dailykos! I'm a novice so be nice!
I really haven't done much research/reading into the upcoming 2008 presidential election. I have heard who is expected the run. I'm curious to know what people think; which likely candidates have the best chance to win? Obviously a lot can happen in the next 2 years, but where do you the potential candidates currently stand?
My uninformed hierarchy is (with my interpretation of general public sentiment):
GOP Candidates:
1. John McCain - Benefits: He has the name recognition and the "straight-shooting" peronality. A distinguished war record and tons of experience in the senate, with a bipartisanship touch. Costs: Has tended more conservative over the last few years.
2. Rudy Giualiani - Benefits: A moderate conservative who was an effective mayor of the largest US city. Has name recognition and is tough on terror. Costs: His messy divorce and admitted infidelity. Health (it will inevitably come up). That garbage statement he made back in 2000 (I read it on wikipedia; a great attack issue for opponents).
3. Mitt Romney - Benefits: A religious man that doesn't have any congressional record weighing him down. Experience includes being a governor and in the financial world. I saw him on Charlie Rose awhile back and he's great in front of the camera. Costs: He's a mormon and has little name recognition at this point. Mostly he's a mormon.
4. ??? I can't think of any other viable candidates that I think have a reasonable shot at winning.
Democratic Candidates:
1. John Edwards - Benefits: A populist. A great campaigner. Looks great in front of the camera. Experience as a prosecutor and a senator; is from the south. Costs: Loss with Kerry, can look a little too youngish and inexperienced (I remember that was one of Cheney's themes in their 2004 VP debate). Wasn't in the military.
2. Hillary Rodham Clinton - Benefits: Great name recognition and experience in the senate. Costs: Her polarizing persona and all the baggage of her husband's presidency without much of the benefit (other than the name recognition).
3. Al Gore - Benefits: Great name recognition and I feel, will be a great, natural contrast choice for the GWB years. I think he can capitalize on his mistakes in 2000. Costs: He lost in 2000 and is associated with Bill (which can be polarizing). Plus, it's somewhat of a longshot that he will decides to run.
4. Wesley Clark - Benefits: Highly decorated general and is consistent on his viewpoints. Costs: Inexperience as a politician other than a failed bid as in the 2004 Democratic candidate.
5. Barack Obama - Benefits: Charismatic and looks good in front of the camera. Has a lot of current excitement over a potential presidential bid. Costs: Inexperience (only been in the US Senate for 3+ years come summer 2008.) Is partially of African descent.
6. John Kerry - Benefits: Name Recognition. Costs: Name recognition. No way he ever will make it out of the primaries if he runs.
I think McCain is pretty much assured the GOP nomination if he enters the race. I also think he has the best chance to win (at this time) in 2008. It's certainly isn't a foregone conclusion, but I think he has an advantage over anyone other GOP/Democratic candidate. How much of a current advantage? I have no idea.
I personally think that if HRC is nominated for the Democratic party, she will lose to McCain. Actually, I think she will lose to almost anyone she runs against. The recent opinion polls report that nearly 50% of the population state they will never vote for her; and I believe those polls (maybe not the 50% number, but I believe the true percentage is very high). The chances she can take Ohio are very slim in my opinion. FL and PA will be very difficult for her to win as well (especially FL).
Rudy Giulianni? I just don't see him winning a national election (unless he's running against HRC); he'll never get a clean sweep of the religous voting bloc based on his pro-gay gay rights and abortion stance. I personally can't stand the man on appearance/persona alone. He comes across as a smarmy politician.
Mitt Romney is a mormon. He'll never get elected in 2008 regardless of anything else good about him.
John Edwards is a very intriguing candidate. I know very little about his stances on various issues. I do know he's from the south and that is a huge plus for a 2008 dem candidate. His economic populism will resonate very strongly in Ohio. Furthermore, I can see him able to hold the states Kerry won in 2004 with a chance to win in IA, NM, and AR against McCain (Those 3 states alone, when added to 2004 Kerry states, are enough to win). He is the only dem candidate that has more than a remote chance of winning NC (remove Clark, and the other dem candidates have no chance of winning). Edwards is a great candidate for Ohio and Florida against McCain, with a reasonable chance of winning those states. If he wasn't running against McCain, I'd say Edwards is the front-runner among all candidates.
Al Gore is a good candidate in my opinion that can win against McCain (although I still give McCain the edge). I just don't think Gore is going to run. In addition, see Gore having a hard time beating McCain in Florida and Ohio. Further, I see Gore easily taking the 2004 Kerry states, but having a hard time getting more electoral votes after that. Those same, recent polls that give HRC an approximate 50% I-will-never-vote-for number, indicate the same for Gore. I can't explain it, but I don't trust those numbers on Gore (again, I believe them for HRC).
Barack Obama has almost no chance of winning in 2008 in my opinion. He's (perceived) inexperience will be his largest detraction, especially against McCain.
John Kerry wouldn't make it out of the primaries if he ran again.
Wesley Clark is my 'dark-horse' pick. I can see the general winning against McCain.
I'd say the only viable candidates for the Democratic party to win against McCain are Edwards, Clark, or Gore. I feel that Clark and Gore are longshots against McCain (I personally like Gore a lot, but see him losing to McCain). Edwards is the only viable candidate to win against McCain (at this point).
So those are my very early, based on a very little informed, factual basis, and purely speculative opinions. What does anyone else think?