The next American presidential election will not be held until November 2008, but the races for the Republican and Democratic nominations are underway. Three years out may seem distant to the casual observer, but one cannot dismiss the political repositioning, verbal jousting, and endless visits by nascent candidates to tiny Iowa and New Hampshire, the hosts of the first primary elections which largely shape the national race.
From the very moment that President Bush edged out John Kerry last November, his administration — by the simple fact that Vice President Cheney would not seek the presidency himself — entered a lengthy lame-duck period. This is not to say Bush has been unable to move his agenda forward, but ultimately means that when Bush’s mastery over the body politic ends — which is likely sooner rather than later — there is no heir apparent.
To paraphrase Jimmy Carter, who watched his job approval plummet in 1980, the country — politically speaking — is in a malaise. President Bush has seen his approval rating slip to 42 percent, while Congress’ stands at 31. Bush’s demise is primarily attributable to Iraq, high gas prices, and an uneven economy. Congress is beset allegations of influence peddling, and has failed to pass legislation which has addressed the problems of the average American voter. Normally, Democrats would gain at the expense of the Republican problems in the White House and on Capitol Hill, but devoid of fresh ideas or alternatives, voters hold them in equal contempt.
Because voters are turned off by the Bush administration, and both the Republican and Democratic parties, presidential candidates have been forced to blaze their own trails and take calculated gambles as to how they can best position themselves among party faithful.
There are at least eleven names mentioned as possible Republican candidates. The presumptive leaders are former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, Sen. John McCain, and, surprisingly, Condoleezza Rice. Others in the pack include five senators — Majority Leader Bill Frist, Rick Santorum, George Allen, and Sam Brownback, and Chuck Hagel — and three governors — Mitt Romney of Massachusetts, Mike Huckabee of Arkansas, and New York’s George Pataki.
Frist, who will retire from the Senate in 2006 — possibly to concentrate on the 2008 presidential race — has had difficulty moving the Bush’s administrations agenda through Congress. Moreover, the one-time darling of the Christian right has recently angered his base by supporting legislation allowing stem-cell research, a move many believe intended to display independence from the White House, which opposes the measure.
Hagel, who like McCain has a reputation as a maverick not averse to bucking the party on certain issues, recently called for the US to withdraw its forces from Iraq, noting that Operation Enduring Freedom is failing. The Nebraska senator is gambling that even loyal Republicans have begun to seriously question, if not oppose, the administration’s Iraq policy.
McCain, with a long streak of independence, which has made him wildly popular even with Democrats, has remained supportive of the administration on Iraq. This may help McCain with the right wing of the party, but it may cost him independent and Democratic votes.
Pataki and Romney — both moderate Republicans from heavily Democratic states — have courted the right wing of the party. Giuliani, a national hero due to his leadership during the 9/11 attacks, is a social moderate, has touted law and order themes. Consistent with their records, both Allen and Brownback have remained allied with social conservatives. Rice’s political ideology is unknown, but presumed to be moderate.
There are nine known Democratic aspirants, with Sen. Hillary Clinton leading the pack. Other top-tier contenders include Kerry and his former running mate, John Edwards. Rounding out the field are Senators Joe Biden and Evan Bayh, Governors Mark Warner, Tom Vilsack, and Bill Richardson, and retired Gen. Wesley Clark. In the most recent poll, Clinton leads her closest opponent, Kerry, by 24 percent.
There are fewer figures as polarizing as the former first lady, long viewed as an unapologetic liberal. Remarkably, however, Clinton has moved to the middle of the political spectrum, taking moderate positions on both domestic and foreign policy. She recently joined the centrist Democratic Leadership Council, and her poll numbers have steadily improved. In 2003, only 41 percent of voters were somewhat or very likely to support a Clinton presidential run; today that figure stands at 52 percent. While there is still a large bloc of voters who loathe Clinton, more voters now strongly support her than strongly oppose her.
Kerry’s biggest hurdle is proving to voters that he is not a loser. Like Al Gore, his narrow loss has created the perception that he is unelectable. Edwards was not tarred with the same brush as Kerry, but many Democrats question his experience; others have not forgotten the Southerner native failed to help the party carry a single Southern state in 2004. Kerry and Edwards, like Clark, are trying to appeal to the left, largely by using Internet-based activity that proved successful during the 2004 Democratic primaries.
Biden and Bayh, both of whom supported Bush’s decision to invade Iraq, are now courting the growing anti-war crowd by questioning the White House’s handling of the conflict. Warner, Vilsack, and Richardson have the luxury of avoiding the Washington limelight and unpopularity of the national Democratic Party.
Polling data shows that a race between either Giuliani or McCain and Clinton would be neck-and-neck, with either Republican holding a slim 50-45 percent lead. However, winning party nominations is a long and bruising endeavor which often yields unexpected results. The jockeying has only just begun.
