How likely is it that Democrats will overwhelmingly support either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton come caucus/primary time next January? The 2008 Democratic nomination will be about electability, electability, and nothing, but electability.
Have you seen how both Obama/Clinton perform in battleground states compared to how John Edwards performs. The comparison isn’t even close when you factor in 2008 swing-states such as Virginia, Missouri, Nevada, New Mexico, Colorado, Ohio, and Florida.
The question now becomes if John Edwards wins the Iowa Caucus, will he have enough political leverage to win the Democratic nomination?
In polling done by the Des Moines Register for the Iowa Caucus in 2004, the front-runner changed 3 times between July and January, in which, Dean (July), Gephardt (Nov), and ultimately Kerry (Jan-winner) were all favored to win leading up to the caucus at one time according to Iowans. Will 2007-2008 be any different, or will John Edwards ride his lead in Iowa to the Democratic nomination come the time of the convention in Denver, Colorado?
In 2004, Iowa caucus participants clearly demonstrated which qualities they find the most desirable in the candidate they prefer for the Democratic nominee for President. The top two major qualities voters wanted in their nominee was the ability to beat Bush in the general election, as well as leadership experience in international relations. The voters of Iowa have overwhelmingly decided the best shot they have to beat the red team is either with Edwards, Obama, or Clinton. (As a side note, Clinton’s top advisers have her playing the new female role of Joe Lieberman at the debates).
In 2008, the only visible difference for the Republican Party will be that their candidate is not going to be an incumbent. When you apply the Democrats’ presidential election strategy towards their potential opposition in the up-coming election, much doesn’t change other than you have 12 aging white men who attend on winning the Republican nomination on a campaign message of being either Jesus freaks or warmongers). The you got to be fucking kidding candidate is still waiting in the wings for the conservative right to parade around in the general election.
Let’s hope in 2008, the Democratic base doesn’t chose a candidate who can’t stand up for his beliefs, flip-flops on major issues, or who can’t fight back against the right-wing swift-boaters. I have a feeling these issues will not be a problem in this election.
Furthermore, the most likely scenarios for the general election is that Democrats will have to either beat Giuliani, Romney, or the Law & Order candidate Fred Thompson. (As of right now, nobody outside the state of Tennessee knows anything about regarding his policy positions, but he has the right-wing carrying his water because run he is supposedly the second coming of Ronald Reagan).
(Ultimately, the nomination may come down to which candidate, or potential ticket can truly represent these two monumental qualities. As a side note, a large portion of Caucus-goers believed a candidate who opposed the Iraq war from the beginning could win the election, but in overall electability overrode a candidate's strong liberal anti-war political ideology).
Policy Rumblings
With fundraising records being already set by the frontrunners (Clinton, Obama, and Edwards) in the first-quarter of presidential fundraising, the only standout foreign policy candidate Bill Richardson remains in the race as only a possible Vice Presidential candidate at best. Therefore, in 2008 the foreign policy variable will either not be represented in the democratic ticket or be the crucial factor that determines who gets chosen as the vice presidential candidate. As a result, the only two politicians alive who are qualified as being foreign-policy candidates who could possibly fill in for the role of Vice President are either New Mexico governor Bill Richardson or Virginia senators Jim Webb.
However, from a presidential policy perspective this is not as simple as it looks on the surface because you can't forget that both gender/race will play equally important when determining which two candidates make up the democratic ticket in 2008. At the same time, the front running trio continues to positions themselves in relation to their policies on Iraq, Healthcare, Taxes, and other important domestic issues, in order to garner the largest amount of votes by the democratic electorate.
In any case, what is very interesting regarding their policy stances is that both Obama & continue to stray to the left of center, while Clinton's top political advisors are quickly positioning her to the center (ala Joe Lieberman) to deflect the negative liberal/socialist impressions by voters.
In theory, this political strategy or what it's called in textbooks (Median Voter Theory) is quite effective because a candidate's particular policy preferences are closet to those at both ends of the political spectrum. As a final outcome, he or she closet to the political center will in most cases obtain the highest frequency of voters. However, Clinton’s perceived negatives are so high it’s uncertain how well she could perform in the general election, but what makes this even more interesting is if that Michael Bloomberg runs for presidents.
As of right now, the best bet for president is John Edwards because he determines his own destiny in Iowa. Ultimately, due to Super-Tuesday there is now a million dollar premium on the Iowa Caucus, and whoever wins that state in either party will win their party’s perspective nomination.