First, a general note on the Democratic nominating calendar.
Now that the Democratic National Committee has given the OK — or as some in the party fear, opened the floodgates — for states to move up their contests, we're in a wait-and-see period, as state parties and legislatures decide whether to try to move ahead on the calendar or not.
Knowledgeable party sources say that with all the governors' and state legislative races going on this year, Democrats in many states won't get around to thinking about this until after November 2002, and advise not to expect the calendar picture to get all that much clearer before May 2003.
In terms of how the calendar could change, we appear to be looking at three possible options: 1) Iowa and New Hampshire retain their first-in-the-nation status, with the rest of the states dribbling out after, and the most likely suspects for moving to early dates being Arizona, South Carolina, Michigan, Washington state, and Delaware, where Republicans are scheduled to have early contests but Democrats currently are not; 2) Iowa and New Hampshire first, followed by a "national primary" on February 3, when the window opens for other Democratic state contests; or 3) something in between, with some states moving up, and others not.
So far, none of the talk amongst and about other states possibly moving up has done anything to diminish the perceived importance of strong showings in Iowa and New Hampshire.
But we still don't know for sure whether Iowa and New Hampshire will be be first amongst equals in terms of press and candidate focus in the Democratic nominating process, or not. The only other state currently drawing a lot of candidate interest is South Carolina, which already has moved its primary to February 3.
So, given that uncertainty, as the candidate with the greatest name recognition, the largest support amongst African-American voters, and at least the vestiges of a natonal political organization, Gore is best positioned, today, to win beyond Iowa and New Hampshire.
And, because of his busy national travel schedule on behalf of the Democratic House candidates, Gephardt probably has logged the most time in the possible early states.
Davis drops a few notches in these rankings. Yes, he could lay claim to California if he decides to join the nominating process, but he has no strength in any other states, and isn't currently working to build any. And while it's possible that California will move its primary from June to an earlier date, it's also possible that the state will opt against having to pay the costs of two separate primary days and keep the date where it is. If that's the case, then Davis may not have a means of entering the fray.
A slice of conventional wisdom that seems to be forming is that Edwards, assuming he runs, will need to win South Carolina in order to continue in the game — because (applying the Kerry rule) he hails from a neighboring state, because he's a Southerner, and because of the four top contenders who did not run for national office in 2000, he is the only one without a key state he could call his own (we give Daschle a fair shot at winning Iowa).
Another matter worth noting: although Sharpton may not be able to accumulate the number of delegates needed to win a whole state, he still can accumulate delegates, particuarly in Southern states.
In future rankings, as we get a better idea of which states or regions of the country will be holding key early contests, we will split up this category.
1. Gore (1)
2. Gephardt (2)
3. Kerry (5) and Edwards (6)
5. Lieberman (4)
6. Daschle (7)
7. Davis (3)
8. Bradley (9)
9. Dodd (10)
10. Biden (12)
11. Dean (11)
12. Sharpton (n/a)
No real changes from our last round, aside from a little credential-polishing from Dodd over the last month or so, including a well-received speech at the Florida state party convention.
1. Daschle (1) and Edwards (1)
3. Kerry (2)
4. Lieberman (3)
5. Gephardt (5) and Gore (5)
7. Davis (7)
8. Bradley (9)
9. Dodd (13)
10. Dean (8)
11. Biden (12)
12. Sharpton (n/a)
Edwards and Daschle trade places here because of the gamut of activities this category includes: not only the one-on-one grip-and-grinning and the cocktail party circuit, at which Edwards and Daschle excel, but also speeches as they are received by the audience, which is where Daschle outpaces Edwards.
We believe Edwards can give better speeches than he has shown so far, but the guy's aversion to using notes (let alone a Tele-prompter) seems to make it more hit-and-miss than a presidential candidate usually can afford.
1. Daschle (2)
2. Edwards (1)
3. Gephardt (3)
4. Gore (4)
5. Kerry (5)
6. Lieberman (5)
7. Dean (8)
8. Bradley (9)
9. Sharpton (n/a)
10. Biden (10)
11. Dodd (11)
12. Davis (13)
Daschle, who has spent more time on TV deflecting Republican attacks and selling what semblance there is of a Democratic message for 2002; Gore, for whom the difference is more simply between not making televised appearances earlier this year, and giving televised speeches now; and Kerry, whose Sunday-show appearances are improving and whose address to the Florida state convention in Orlando came across quite well on TV, all move up in the ratings here.
Edwards drops a bit based on the fact that his "Meet the Press" interview showed that he's on shaky territory when an interviewer takes questioning to the next level, looking for policy details, a broader rationale, or deeper thinking.
Lieberman, who generally does quite well on TV, is down a bit simply because others have moved up.
1. Daschle (3)
2. Gore (4) and Kerry (4)
4. Edwards (1)
5. Lieberman (2)
6. Gephardt (6)
7. Dean (7)
8. Bradley (9)
9. Davis (10)
10. Dodd (11)
11. Biden (12)
12. Sharpton (n/a)
Edwards and Bradley trade places in this category. Edwards' recent rhetoric on Afghanistan has shown that he's not solid on this particular basket of issues, though he is taking the opportunity to ask a lot of questions of the administration on alleged intelligence failures before September 11, and if challenged on what he says about Central Asia, doesn't necessarily have the ability to back it up. Otherwise, the ratings remain the same.
1. Kerry (1)
2. Gore (2)
3. Lieberman (3)
4. Daschle (4) and Gephardt (4)
6. Biden (6) and Davis (6)
8. Bradley (9)
9. Edwards (8)
10. Dean (11)
11. Dodd (13)
12. Sharpton (n/a)
Edwards remains in our top slot for the positive profiles he continues to reap in the likes of the New Yorker, Vanity Fair, and GQ, even if some pundits have begun poking holes in his image.
Daschle drops pretty dramatically because his coverage is limited to that of the Democratic leader who stands up to Republicans — no more profiles like the ones which ran back when he became Majority Leader, with speculative analyses of Daschle as a candidate for national office.
Lieberman too has dropped because, as noted above, all coverage of him as a prospective presidential candidate includes the caveat that the likelihood of his seeking national office in the near future depends upon the prospecting by another contender.
1. Edwards (1)
2. Gore (8)
3. Kerry (4)
4. Lieberman (3)
5. Gephardt (5)
6. Daschle (1)
7. Dean (6)
8. Sharpton (n/a)
9. Dodd (11)
10. Bradley (12)
11. Davis (7)
12. Biden (10)
Just a reminder: the way we approach this particular category is to ask a young Democrat, political reporter, or left-leaning columnist, "Who are you excited to vote for/cover as the possible presidential nominee?"
The changes here require little explaining: Edwards still gets the most buzz, though he arguably has lost some momentum. Indeed, he remains practically the only contender who generates any real buzz at all, though Kerry gets a little. The recently re-emerged Gore edges up two notches, displacing Lieberman, since he won't run if Gore does, and Daschle, who's still not giving any indication of his plans.
Bradley, who has traveled to New Hampshire and done some campaigning for other candidates of late, edges up the list, as well.
1. Edwards (1)
2. Kerry (2)
3. Gephardt (2)
4. Gore (6)
5. Lieberman (4)
6. Daschle (5)
7. Dean (7)
8. Bradley (13)
9. Davis (8)
10. Dodd (11)
11. Diden (11)
12. Sharpton (n/a)
One of the most striking and impressive aspects of Gore's recent speeches has been his arguably belated claims about the Clinton/Gore record in a confident, even boastful way that was utterly absent during the general election campaign. Of course, in a Democratic nominating contest, being able to talk about the Clinton/Gore achievements without getting bogged down in impeachment is really valuable.
The former president has popped up in the Invisible Primary in random other ways — from Russert's grilling of Edwards on "Meet the Press" to Gephardt's couple of mentions of his handling of impeachment — and no doubt he will continue to do so. We'll continue to take note of how many of the wannabes Clinton speaks with, and in some cases, how often.
1. Edwards (1)
2. Gore (5)
3. Kerry (2)
4. Lieberman (3)
5. Daschle (4)
6. Gephardt (7)
7. Davis (6)
8. Dodd (10)
9. Bradley (9)
10. Dean (12)
11. Biden (13)
12. Sharpton (n/a)
The only shift here: we put Gephardt on par with Daschle by now, and, for better or worse, a lot of people know the name of Al Sharpton.
1. Gore (1)
2. Lieberman (2)
3. Daschle (3) and Gephardt (5)
5. Bradley (4)
6. Davis (6)
7. Sharpton (n/a)
8. Edwards (7) and Kerry (7)
10. Biden (10)
11. Dodd (11)
12. Dean (13)
Edwards' whirlwind of early state travel, including two scheduled trips to South Carolina in May (one of which didn't happen because of Senate votes) followed by trips to New Hampshire and Iowa in June, land him back at the top of the list, along with the guy whose travel schedule and attacks on the Bush tax cut nearly put the rest of the field to shame: Dean.
Kerry and Gephardt want it just as bad, pretty much, but Kerry has to at least look focused on his 2002 re-election bid, just as Gephardt has to look somewhat focused on trying to win back the House this cycle.
1. Edwards (2) and Dean (5)
3. Kerry (1) and Gephardt (3)
5. Lieberman (4)
6. Gore (6)
7. Sharpton (n/a)
8. Daschle (7)
9. Biden (9)
10. Dodd (10)
11. Davis (8)
12. Bradley (12)
As we said up top, Daschle has been earning chits faster than the rest of the top tier through his GOP block-and-tackle as Majority Leader, and we suspect he would find some key endorsements to be mined should he decide to run.
1. Gore (1)
2. Gephardt (2)
3. Daschle (5)
4. Kerry (3) and Lieberman (3)
6. Edwards (6)
7. Bradley (7)
8. Dean (8)
9. Dodd (10)
10. Davis (11)
11. Sharpton (n/a)
12. Biden (13)
We're a tiny bit skeptical that the Democratic party's single most influential and far-reaching interest group is so fixated on the midterm elections that they're not buzzing at all about 2004. But we certainly can believe that, given the close margins in the Senate and House, they're inclined to hold back and expend their political energies on more pressing matters.
When they do begin fixating on the presidential race, though, one well-placed source expects labor as a whole to be practical and weigh each wannabe's electability, asking each of them how they plan to win, rather than just move as a herd toward one candidate or another. Some fracturing likely will take place.
That said, Gephardt remains at the top here. Labor sources credit him for making a point of meeting with local leaders and deny that any grudge is held against him over his role in passing campaign finance reform. We're keeping Gore in second place for now, but have heard of so little evidence of him reaching out to labor folks who supported him last time that unless he makes reparations soon, he will slide further down the list.
According to labor sources, beyond Gephardt and Gore, Kerry has been working labor pretty hard, and Edwards is now reaching out. And of course, most of labor likes what Daschle has been doing in the Senate.
1. Gephardt (1)
2. Gore (2)
3. Kerry (6)
4. Edwards (3) and Davis (5)
6. Daschle (8)
7. Lieberman (7)
8. Bradley (10)
9. Dean (11)
10. Dodd (12)
11. Biden (13)
12. Sharpton (n/a)
Daschle's water-carrying for the party drives up his rating here as well, as does Gephardt's. Gore remains tops among African-Americans, but several other candidates are jockeying for position among this key voting bloc.
1. Gore (1)
2. Gephardt (4)
3. Daschle (10)
4. Kerry (2)
5. Edwards (5)
6. Lieberman (2)
7. Bradley (6)
8. Sharpton (n/a)
9. Davis (8)
10. Dean (9)
11. Dodd (10)
12. Biden (13)
No changes to this category.
1. Edwards (1)
2. Daschle (2)
3. Kerry (3)
4. Bradley (4)
5. Lieberman (5)
6. Dean (7)
7. Gephardt (8)
8. Dodd (10)
9. Sharpton (n/a)
10. Davis (11)
11. Biden (12)
12. Gore (13)
Gore's re-emergence and confronting of George W. Bush on a range of issues — for being too conservative, and for being too tied to special interests — drives up his rating here among the Democratic Establishment, meaning the Democratic National Committee members and other party officials. Gephardt, however, still is doing the best job of working these folks.
1. Gephardt (1)
2. Gore (4)
3. Kerry (2)
4. Edwards (3)
5. Lieberman (5)
6. Daschle (6)
7. Dodd (9)
8. Dean (8)
9. Davis (10)
10. Bradley (7)
11. Sharpton (n/a)
12. Biden (13)
No changes to this category since the last round. While they collectively have less presidential campaign experience than the Edwards and Gephardt folks (assuming everyone gets who they're currently in line to get), the Kerry team has been just as technically adroit to date. Lieberman has been building a political staff more slowly, while Gore has assembled a political shop which, outside its press operation, seems quite shaky and not exactly first-tier.
We are still waiting to see whether Gore can move to the head of the class in one fell swoop by getting the services of Carter Eskew, Joe Lockhart, and the rest of the their shop.
1. Kerry (1) and Edwards (1) and Gephardt (1)
4. Gore (4)
5. Lieberman (4)
6. Daschle (6)
7. Davis (8)
8. Bradley (7)
9. Dodd (11)
10. Dean (12)
11. Biden (13)
12. Sharpton (n/a)
The Categories
Money potential — Almost always, the candidate who has raised the most money by the time of the Iowa caucuses wins the nomination. Actual cash in the bank eventually will matter more than the potential to raise it, but until that point, here are the questions being asked: How much money can the candidate raise — in reality, in the candidate's own opinion, and in the opinion of close observers? Has he gotten commitments from heavy-hitter fundraisers and the party's major donors? Is he funneling money into a re-election campaign fund for 2002 or 2004, which could be rolled into a presidential account? Is he making the stops in New York, Hollywood, Texas, and Miami? Is he viewed as able to raise the approximately $25 million deemed necessary — and in the federally required increments of $2,000 or less? Does he have his own vast personal resources to help fund a run? Has he set up a PAC to help fund his political travel and make contributions (read: sow goodwill) to other candidates? In any big political campaign, money is one of the three legs of the stool, also known as the "virtuous cycle:" fundraising leads to good press coverage, which leads to better poll numbers, both of which are shown to would-be contributors, leading to more money, to even better coverage and poll numbers, and so on.
Message/Issues—One of the heartening aspects of US presidential politics is voters' tendency to demand that candidates base their campaigns on something meaningful. A good message is future-oriented and easy to understand, and reflects issues voters care about. And oh, yes, it helps if the candidate actually believes his own message and has been haranguing passionately about it for at least a few years. Although Bill Clinton made Democratic presidential politics safe for debate over certain crossover issues (the death penalty, welfare reform, balanced budgets, etc.), a party orthodoxy still exists, of which candidates' past "votes and quotes" and present positions can run afoul. Also, as voters' priorities change in the face of bigger, non-political events like, say, a war or a recession, which candidates are helped, and which are hurt?
Iowa— Although other states are being allowed to hold their contests earlier this cycle (starting one week after New Hampshire, under the current proposed calendar), at this writing at least, Iowa's caucuses and New Hampshire's primary seem likely to retain their dominance, holding a disproportionate (given their meager number of delegates at stake) influence, on the determination of the nominee. Winning the largely invisible run-up to the balloting in these two states means building a presence there — personally, in terms of appearances and local media coverage, and through support from key operatives and elected officials. As the contests draw closer, statewide polling will come to matter, too, in terms of setting expectations.
New Hampshire— Same as Iowa, with local press also including the Boston media market.
Other states (in terms of the nomination calendar)- Is the candidate methodically building a presence — through personal appearances and/or support from key local operatives and officials — in the states whose nominating contests are likely to follow close behind Iowa and New Hampshire's? South Carolina is the only state to have moved, so far, but the rest of the calendar will remain in flux for awhile. As of today, states viewed as likely to fall in line behind Iowa and New Hampshire include Arizona, Delaware, Michigan, and possibly Washington state.
Perceived electability— After losing the White House, the activists and voters of the party out of power are always hungry to win it back. Bill Clinton in 1992 and George W. Bush in 2000 are two good examples of candidates who were helped because their party faithful smelled a nominee and general election winner.
In-person campaigning skills — How does the candidate do in formal speeches before large audiences, smaller venues, spontaneous situations, pig roasts, sledding, flapjack-flipping, and town meetings? Coat on or off? Tie loosened or tight? Can the candidate turn on a room? Perhaps most importantly, can he "hang?"
Television campaign skills — Mastering the medium through which most voters get their information about the candidates — even in retail-politics states like Iowa and New Hampshire — is vital. Formal speeches, press conferences, Oprah, and Oprah-like settings usually have in-person audiences, but learning how to sell yourself to the thousands or millions in the local or network TV audience is more important. The same goes for how the candidate does on-camera in paid TV advertising, though those appearances last only a matter of seconds. Forgoing wonky talk and being interesting are good, but having enough experience to not look nervous or rattled is also key.
Wartime leadership/anti-terrorism credentials — What kind of track record does the candidate have on national security issues, both pre- and post-September 11? Has the candidate focused legislatively on in speeches on these issues? Has he racked up a bunch of past votes in Congress that an opponent could use to cast him as pro-terrorist or anti-defense? Insert Vietnam service here.
Media coverage—As noted above, good press clips are essential in raising money. They also help a campaign create buzz, hire better staff, and strengthen the perception of electability. Halperin's Rule of winning a party nomination: in order for a candidate to win, two national political columnists must openly suggest he CAN, in fact, win the nomination, while also secretly wanting him to, plus two national political reporters must also think he CAN become the nominee.
Buzz/momentum- You know a candidate who's hot when you see him, and breaking through to the wider media culture beyond just the political junkies is a sign that a candidate is creating a stir. When things are going well for a campaign, good days get even better, and truly bad days become avoidable. There usually isn't enough political oxygen during the invisible primary for more than two or three candidates at a time to enjoy any real momentum.
The Clinton factor -This one is as unpredictable and hard to control as the man himself, and can cut for or against a candidate, depending on the circumstances. Is the candidate consulting with the former President? What is Clinton's public stance toward the candidate? Is he counseling the candidate or doing anything to help him behind the scenes? What is the candidate's rhetorical stance toward the Clinton years? Senator Clinton plays a role here, too.
Polling/name ID — Don't get us wrong: apart from Al Gore, we don't expect a vast majority of voters nationwide to recognize these guys for awhile. But we do expect to see some movement among the polls in key states like Iowa and New Hampshire, where they'll be spending more and more time. Again, improving his standing in the polls usually helps a candidate raise money.
Fire in the belly — How badly does the candidate want it? How hard is he willing to work? Will he do "what it takes" to win, including shedding or at least temporarily freeing himself from other responsibilities and distractions? Is he ready to ask strangers for $1,000 contributions and sleep in bad hotels away from his family night after night? Endorsements.- Political insiders and reporters sometimes overestimate how the support of local and national elected officials can affect on voter turnout on election day. But winning key endorsements during the invisible primary, particularly in Iowa and New Hampshire, is a great way to attract media attention and, to a lesser degree, attention from would-be donors. Since almost every key elected Democrat endorsed Gore in 2000, some defections will be inevitable this time, and other candidates who snag any of his former major supporters will get a bump.
Labor — Judging from the past few cycles, the Democratic candidate who has the support of labor in certain states has a big advantage in those primaries and caucuses, and thus an advantage overall. Labor does not seem likely to stay united behind Gore if he runs, especially if Gephardt also runs. And if any of the other candidates manage to persuade any or all of the AFL-CIO and its member unions to stay neutral, that could be considered victory enough. Particularly influential: the always-ready-to-mobilize teachers, government employees, auto workers, and service employees unions.