Tyler Cowen, following Dan Drezner, offers his thoughts on who is likely to be elected President in 2008. (A completely different question, of course, than who you think should be President.) Unusually, I not only disagree with all of Tyler's conclusions, but also his reasoning. But it did remind me that all the internets are waiting on tenterhooks for my own handicapping of the race. So, without further ado, the Democrats:
Hillary Clinton. The presumptive front-runner, although with obvious baggage. And no, her husband doesn't count as a liability; he's a masterful political strategist, a great campaigner, and extremely well-liked, as Al Gore would have realized in 2000 if his own political instincts were more highly developed than those of a mole rat. But Hillary herself is not a great strategist, is only a competent campaigner, and isn't all that well-liked. Republicans would unite against her in a general election to an unprecedented degree. Overall, her skill set is much better attuned to being a Senator than a President, or a Presidential candidate. And she is a woman; overt sexism might not be the issue, but in the general election the Republicans will make sure that every misogynist stereotype is in constant media rotation. But she might win; she has the money, a great team, and the real Hillary-haters are a vocal minority, not a true majority. Tyler says that Americans are tired of dynasties, which I would find more persuasive if they stopped electing them.
Barack Obama. Longtime readers know that I am down with Obama. He is the real deal: smart, committed, charismatic, and sincere. He doesn't have much experience in national politics, but that's not nearly the liability in a Presidential campaign that many make it out to be. He was unambiguously against the war in Iraq, which -- contrary to the stale wisdom that foreign policy always favors Republicans -- will be a big vote-getter. People really don't like the war, and they will vote on the issue, and it will favor any Democrat who has the wit to take advantage. On the other hand, he is black. We live in a racist country, and there are plenty of people who will vote on that basis, even if they don't tell pollsters. And his middle name is "Hussein," which Fox news will never ever let you forget. The only reason why these aren't deal-breakers is the hope that they only apply to people who would never vote for a Democrat in the first place; but that might be wishful thinking.
John Edwards. A very plausible sleeper candidate, who would be a comfortable front-runner in an ordinary year without the Clinton/Obama celebrity factor to deal with. Gained invaluable experience during the Kerry campaign -- hopefully, learning some difficult lessons about what not to do. Accrued serious points among primary voters by admitting he was wrong about the Iraq war (in stark contrast to Hillary), and has an actual substantive message about poverty. Comes across as too artificial and slick, which can be a big disadvantage, especially to Democratic candidates; also, a relatively weak debater, as was evident in his matchup against [strike]Voldemort[/strike] Cheney. Originally, the primary calendar was tuned almost precisely to his advantage; now, with California and other big states moving up, money will be more important, which won't help him. Definitely in third right now, but a come-from-behind victory isn't out of the question.
Someone else. None of the people actually running has a chance, although Bill Richardson is intriguing. Wesley Clark might have been an interesting possibility, but the top three are already sucking up all the oxygen, and it's basically too late to jump in at this point (less than 20 months before the election!).
And the Republicans:
John McCain. The formerly-presumptive frontrunner who has somehow frittered away his status. The McCain aura was always a bit of a mystery; despite being reliably conservative on most issues, he was able to pick and choose a public stance here and there to burnish his image as a "maverick." So much so that some (crazy) Democrats wanted him on their ticket in 2000. But it's no mystery why he isn't running away with the primary race; over the last few years he has embarked on a single-minded campaign to completely undermine his hard-earned reputation as an independent-minded straight shooter. Where he used to stand up to the religious right, now he curries their favor, although he does so with such awkwardness that nobody is really fooled. And he has become the biggest supporter of the Iraq war outside the White House and the Connecticut for Lieberman party. McCain has managed to transform himself from a figure who was widely respected, even by people who didn't agree with him, into someone who nobody trusts. Nevertheless, given the weakness of the rest of the Republican field, he still might back into the nomination.
Rudy Giuliani. The fact that Rudy Giuliani is currently leading in Republican polls, and that smart people occasionally opine that he could win the election or even be a good President, is a source of unlimited amazement to me. Yes, he gave a couple of stirring speeches after 9/11. Something tells me that this will not be enough to overcome his penchant for dressing in drag, his support for funding abortions for poor women (always a winner among Republican primary voters), and the fact that he is hated by firefighters, by New Yorkers, and by his own kids. He's already lost his own campaign book, and is weighed down by his association with Bernard Kerik. Personality-wise, he's a thin-skinned autocrat who can't handle criticism -- something that, I'm taken to understand, occasionally comes your way during a Presidential campaign. If Rudy Giuliani wins the 2008 general election, I promise to never again make a political prediction in public for the rest of my life.
Mitt Romney. Oh yeah, a pro-choice pro-gay-rights pro-gun-control Mormon from Massachusetts is exactly what Republican primary voters in South Carolina are looking for. His chances look good in the Utah primary, though. Why are we even talking about this? Of course, Romney has conveniently changed his positions on nearly every hot-button social issue since he shifted his sights from the Massachusetts governor's mansion to the White House. It won't help.
Someone else. Unlike on the Democratic side, it seems completely plausible that a latecomer could swoop in to change the complexion of the Republican race. The names being bandied about thus far, however -- Fred Thompson? Newt Gingrich? -- aren't inspiring anyone. But this field is not yet set in stone, and there's plenty of room for intrigue to come.
And the winner is: I don't know. The Democratic primary race is too close to call, but I'll be happy to predict that whoever wins it will waltz into the White House. On the Democratic side: three solid contenders. On the Republican side: a cross-dressing autocrat, a New England Mormon, and an old guy whose entire schtick is sincerity but who has abandoned all pretence of having any. All of whom are running on the legacy of one of the least popular Presidents in history. Are you kidding me? Not since 1976 (post-Watergate) have Democratic chances looked this good this far before the election. But, since there's no accountability in this game, I'll go ahead and translate my gut feelings into a quantitative prediction for the chances to become President in 2008: Obama 35%, Clinton 30%, Edwards 15%, McCain 10%, any other Republican 10%. Subject to change without notice. It's early, but I'm happy to think that there's a better than even chance that our next President will either be a woman or an African-American. Either would be a watershed moment in our history, something of which we could (quite belatedly) be proud.
