Sam Spade's 2008 Presidential Election/Primary Prediction Thread

[Sam Spade]

Overview of the National Environment

Right now, the national environment is well nigh great for Democrats and terrible for Republicans.  Although these things can change very quickly, I doubt it will unless a significant number of troops in Iraq are withdrawn or without an end to violence and death, both of which are kind of dependent on each other.

In this type of environment, Democratic candidates are to be favored for 2008 in general.

UPDATED (October 2007):  Iraq is becoming less and less of an issue, but so far this has not translated much to the Republican's benefit.
Field Examination - Democrats

First Tier - in this order
Hillary Clinton

Second Tier - in this order
Barack Obama
John Edwards

Third Tier - in this order
Bill Richardson
Joe Biden
Chris Dodd
Dennis Kucinich

UPDATED (November 2008):  There is now only one top tier, and Hillary is still that tier.  I have removed Richardson from the second tier, because he shouldn't be there. 

I do not see Al Gore or Wes Clark entering the race.  I still give Edwards/Richardson an outside chance, Richardson greater than Edwards I suspect, but I don't know why.
Rankings

Hillary Clinton has a 65% chance of winning the nomination. (+5%)
Barack Obama has a 25% chance of winning the nomination. (-5%)
Bill Richardson has a 5% chance of winning the nomination. (+/-0)
John Edwards has a 5% chance of winning the nomination. (+/-0)
Field Examination - Republicans

First Tier
Rudy Giuliani

Second Tier - in this order
Mitt Romney
John McCain
Fred Thompson
Mike Huckabee

Third Tier - in this order
Ron Paul
Tom Tancredo
Duncan Hunter

UPDATED (December 2007):  The longer Romney is in the lead in New Hampshire and Iowa, the better his chances get.  However, Huckabee and Giuliani are pulling in tandem (I don't know whether they've planned this or not, probably not) the smartest move of the Republican campaign, IMO.  Because New Hampshire is only 5 days after Iowa and the two states act very differently anyway, I cannot see a serious campaign happening in New Hampshire after Iowa (ignore for a second, Wyoming).  Some momentum can be had there, but that's about it.

As I said all along, I thought Romney's strategy was the correct one - the domino theory is still the best one in primary politics.  But what Huckabee and Rudy are doing here is attacking him from both sides - Huckabee in Iowa and Rudy in New Hampshire.  It is fundamentally going to be very hard for Romney to sustain advances from both candidates (and he isn't), so Romney is having to presently decide which state is the one he cannot lose - because he can't lose both of them and be a serious candidate in the primaries.

Romney's decision, IMO the correct one, is to ignore Huckabee and focus on Rudy and NH.  NH is the Romney firewall.  I also think it is the state that should fundamentally be the strongest for him out of the two (by far).  Moreover, a Huckabee win in Iowa doesn't change the locus of the race, because it is highly unlikely that Huckabee (even after an Iowa win) could do better than second in NH (and I think 3rd is much more realistic).  In addition, a Huckabee win doesn't damage Romney as much as a Giuliani win in NH.  If Huckabee doesn't win Iowa, I think it's going to be kind of difficult for him to recover (momentum candidate and all) - which moves the race more towards the Romney-Giuliani matchup he wants.  If Giuliani doesn't win in NH, Giuliani is far from out of the contest.  The map after South Carolina leans in his favor generally, especially if the Republican field remains fractured.  On the other hand, if Giuliani wins New Hampshire and Romney were to win Iowa, the Giuliani-Romney race would form, but at a dynamic Giuliani would like.

McCain appears to be pulling out of Iowa and resting hopes on New Hampshire and South Carolina - his position, IMO, has weakened in the past couple of weeks.  If Thompson had a strategy, I would tell him to focus on Iowa and have South Carolina as the firewall, but his focus on Iowa has only lost him votes.  Does the Thompson team even have a strategy?
Rankings

Rudy Giuliani stands a 45% chance of winning the nomination.
Mitt Romney has a 25% chance of winning the nomination. (+5%)
Mike Huckabee stands a 20% chance of winning the nomination. (+5%, momentum candidates get a bump)
John McCain has a 5% chance of winning the nomination. (-5%)
Fred Thompson has a 5% chance of winning the nomination. (he may be at zero before long)

[Sam Spade]

Here's a climate-related question: When was the last time a party has retained the White House when their incumbent (either not running or term limited) has had a less than 50% approval rating. Will George W. Bush's approval rating have to be above 50% on election day for the GOP to win?

Since polling doesn't go back very far, I can only think of two instances that match your situation:  Truman in 1952 and LBJ in 1968.  Not that great of a sample size.

Still, I do agree with you that it will be difficult for a Republican to win in 2008.  I suspect the only candidate who can do so is Rudy Giuliani.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

My gut, based on watching interviews with the two over the past couple of months and also what I know about the Republican party.  I have plenty of reasons too, but I don't have time to list them frankly. 

[Sam Spade]

Here's a climate-related question: When was the last time a party has retained the White House when their incumbent (either not running or term limited) has had a less than 50% approval rating. Will George W. Bush's approval rating have to be above 50% on election day for the GOP to win?

I think the situation in which the incumbent himself is running has to be looked at a bit differently from the situation in which a successor from his party is running.  And as Sam indicated, there have only been a few examples of the latter occuring since polling started.  However, the last Gallup poll before the '88 election had Reagan's approval rating at just 51%.  Since Bush won that election by about 8%, I think it's safe to say that he still could have won even if Reagan's approval rating had been a few points lower.  So the sitting president's approval rating probably doesn't have to be greater than 50% for his party to win.  But of course, Bush is currently more than just a few points below 50%.  He's *well* below 50%.

Eisenhower started off 1960 at 71%, fell to 49% by July, but was back up at 60% by October.  Didn't help Nixon much.

Adding Clinton, who had positive popularity (I don't remember what actually), those are the only five candidates that fit the profile Boris provided.

[Sam Spade]

Posting to bump Hillary's chances down by about 5% and Obama's up by about 5%.

Everything else stays the same.

[Sam Spade]

Based on what I saw yesterday in Selma AL, I'm bumping Obama up 5% and taking that 5% from Edwards (not Hillary).

[Sam Spade]

Haven't posted here since late March and a lot has changed.  Well, maybe not so much...

Updated above.

[Sam Spade]

Mitt Romney clearly belongs in the first tier and Fred Thompson is another Wesley Clark.  Irrelevant.

Fred Thompson is the toughest person in the race to judge.  Personally, I agree with you, but time will tell.  He is as high as he is b/c of poll standing, nothing else.  Mitt can't be considered much higher in my book until he shows he is electable, which is always a huge factor in GOP nominations (especially this year).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why?  Is there a future Kucinich surge I missed?

[Sam Spade]

I concur with just about all you have said here, Sam, except I think McCain and Romney have about equal chances of winning the nomination.

This is a fair point.  Especially since McCain's numbers appear to have stablized.

[Sam Spade]

I had a long typed-out response to your points, Gustaf, but I deleted it.

Simply put, the question is about electability.  I am also really unsure as to whether IA and NH will "make the nominee" like they have in past years.  Thompson unimpresses me every time I've seen him.  Without Thompson in the race or an impressive Thompson candidacy or "maybe" a resurgent McCain (lol), I don't see how Giuliani doesn't control the South.  Romney's Mormonism is more Satanic to the evangelical voter than a Catholic.  And if Giuliani controls the South, it's game, set and match. 

I also don't see "consistently low polling numbers" from anyone except Romney in the South and McCain in general (lol).  Please describe.

I'll say more later, probably after Labor Day.

[Sam Spade]

I had a long typed-out response to your points, Gustaf, but I deleted it.

Simply put, the question is about electability.  I am also really unsure as to whether IA and NH will "make the nominee" like they have in past years.  Thompson unimpresses me every time I've seen him.  Without Thompson in the race or an impressive Thompson candidacy or "maybe" a resurgent McCain (lol), I don't see how Giuliani doesn't control the South.  Romney's Mormonism is more Satanic to the evangelical voter than a Catholic.  And if Giuliani controls the South, it's game, set and match. 

I also don't see "consistently low polling numbers" from anyone except Romney in the South and McCain in general (lol).  Please describe.

I'll say more later, probably after Labor Day.

Well, I don't have much time as I type this, but basically: Since the 1st of April, looking at the polls posted in the forum polling section the highest Guliani number is 25%. And that's Strategic Vision of April 1st. Only twice since then has he been above 20%, and both of those were ARG. That last ARG is the only one showing Guliani leading the field in Iowa since that SV poll. For someone who has consistently been the frontrunner in national polls that's a weak result to me. Looking at New Hampshire Guliani does have higher numbers, but still the only poll in which he has held the lead since February (and THAT was Suffolk University) is the latest ARG summer poll (and, again, even then only 1%). Guliani did hold the lead once you go back but that was at a time when his lead in the national polls was nothing short of enormous. Romney had consistently held the lead in BOTH the early primary states for several months now. So, I guess I have a hard time seeing Guliani take the nom if he loses BOTH Iowa and New Hampshire. Perhaps someone knows when this happened last, but I don't.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Of course, the South is not his home turf.  But Giuliani is likely not going to rest his hat on South Carolina - his goal is Florida, which is not a stereotypical Southern state.  And regardless of what happens in IA and NH - if Giuliani wins SC, he will be nearly impossible to beat. 

I remain unconvinced that Romney's Mormon problem can be overcome with Evangelicals.  Look at it this way - in IA and NH, Romney has spent millions of dollars and hired staff.  He has gained considerable % since he did that.  In SC, he has done the exact same thing.  The impact has been minimal, at best.  And the old rule of campaigns probably still applies - if $1 million won't change voters, it is unlikely $100 million will.

That's the reason why a Thompson win (or someone else) in SC is key to the Romney strategy.  Or maybe pushing Michigan ahead of Florida - though that strategy is more iffy than otherwise.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't rule out either assumption - not at this point in the game.

[Sam Spade]

Astonishingly enough, I notice I haven't posted in over a year (still reading, o/c) but just had to say, Sam, IMHO your predictions are spot on.

I have a few quibbles: Are you sure that even a middling-impressive Thompson run doesn't take the non-Florida South from Rudy? On the other end of the equation, if Thompson is that weak, why do you rank him so high above Romney (and I agree about Romney's low national competitiveness)?

Well, the Thompson factor is the key wild-card in the Republican primary.  It is part of the reason why my talk about him is so confusing. 

Thompson (IMO) has to be more than middling-impressive to win in the non-Florida South.  On a scale of 1 to 5, this means he must be a minimum 3.5 and hope momentum does not go against him at any point.

I believe Thompson is weak b/c of what I have seen of him on TV.  But at the same time I must credence to polling numbers and possibilities.  The 20%-25% call is an average of these conflicting sentiments.

[Sam Spade]

I have made a Post-Ames update and have recalibrated my Dem rankings.  You will notice a change in the numbers, b/c I have decided to discontinue my "range rankings".  If any candidate has any "shot" of winning the nomination (in my mind), he will automatically receive 5%.

Pre-Ames, I think it was fairly clear that only 4 Democrats (Hillary, Obama, Edwards and Richardson) have a "shot" at winning the nomination.  Post-Ames, I think nothing has changed.

On the Republican side, the race was slightly more fluid.  I think this has changed a bit - as Ames always does - but it is still more fluid.  I now consider only 5 Republican contenders to have a shot at winning the nomination.  They are Giuliani, McCain, Romney, Huckabee and F. Thompson (if he announces).  Huckabee has replaced [MYSTERY SOCIAL CONSERVATIVE] in my list. Some of the other candidates will continue on, and I actually suspect Tancredo might get a boost from the straw poll, but that is it.  No other candidate (i.e. Newt) entering the race will change this dynamic.  F. Thompson is the only wildcard.

The weaknesses are apparent with the candidates under Giuliani - and as such I can't place any of them at greater than 15%. 

F. Thompson polls well nationally and in the South especially, but has no organization and has not subjected himself to the usual political scrutiny that could easily weaken him.  Romney is leading in IA and NH, but performs poorly in election races against all Dem candidates and is weak in the South.  McCain has hit his nadir, and it appears to be at 13%-14%, which is actually pretty strong.  However, he is only running in certain states b/c of fundraising and a good section of the Republican party doesn't like him already.  Huckabee appears to be genuinely liked by evangelicals and considerably outpolled his presence in Ames.  However, his fundraising is weak and he lacks any type of organization nationally or statewide - a consistent problem AR Republicans always seem to have.

[Sam Spade]

Two comments:

1. Newt will not run.  Even if he does run, Newt has no chance.  Period.  Don't delude yourself into thinking otherwise.  If you want to know why, you should ask his ex-wife (among others).

2. Romney would be tied with Giuliani in my prediction right now if he could compete nationally with any Democrat (Hillary above others) - which in turn would show up in better national primary polling for him (the two are kinda synonymous).  His flip-flopping is not as important as his religion, which in turn is not as important as his electability, and the three are interrelated.  If he is not viewed as electable (see head-to-head numbers) by January 2008, he will not win the nomination.  Period.  He may receive a little window of opportunity if he wins Iowa, but I suspect if he is not viewed as electable in December 2007, you will see him lose in Iowa anyway.

The GOP voter's key concern in 2008 - above terrorism, above social values, etc. -  will be electability.  I will be happy to hammer this into anyone's mind, if they think otherwise. 

Other than that, I agree with your comments

[Sam Spade]

I have updated this post.  The Dem side stays the same (though I am tempted to move Obama down).  Edwards has pulled out of Nevada, in case anyone missed it.  I am not surprised.

On the Republican side, I have decided to move Mitt up a tad (10%) and McCain and Rudy down a tad (50% and 5% respectively).  Mitt is performing slightly better in the South right now and nationally and I remain unconvinced as to whether McCain can ever recover.  In fact, I suspect the odds McCain will recover or Huckabee will gain steam are roughly the same.

Fred Thompson's odds of not running in my mind have moved up to 20%-25%, I don't care what he says.

[Sam Spade]

Again, I am in pretty general agreement- especially that Romney is much more serious now, and Thompson in decline.

Tiny nitpick: go ahead and remove Tommy from your rankings.

Who do you see potentially upsetting Romney in Iowa?

McCain was never very strong in Iowa, even though he has placed his eggs there, I can't see him doing anything.  Thompson could be a threat, but first he has to show interest.  Huckabee could play quite well there and take away Romney votes.  Giuliani has been campaigning strong there the past couple of months, but I still don't picture this as a good state for him - maybe he's just picking up his quartile.

Romney should be favored there, but electability is probably the strongest thing that might upset him (like Dean).  It sounds stupid, but there it is.

[Sam Spade]

Poughies:

Most of this is based on polls and gut feeling.  If you believe, as I do, that electability will be the key focus in Republican minds - Rudy will clearly rate above Romney.  Similarly, if you suspect, as I do, that evangelicals will vote for a Catholic over a Mormon - Rudy will clearly rate above Romney.

I also can't seriously put Huckabee above Thompson until he raises money and shows more than 4%-5% in national polls.  My gut doesn't push me that far. 

[Sam Spade]

Think of it this way, GUstaf.  The "tiers" are where things stand right now.  As things stand right now, it is clear Edwards is above Richardson in every possible way, unlike Mitt v. Thompson v. McCain.

HOwever, the "chances of winning the nomination" is a future predictor, and there I simply suspect that Richardson has more "potential upward momentum" than Edwards.

I hope this makes sense.

[Sam Spade]

I have updated my list here, but the Dems remain unchanged, for now.

[Sam Spade]

Updated.

Dems:  I have moved Clinton up 5% and Obama down 5%, due to fundraising and Obama's overall bad campaigning and weakness.  I am halfway tempted to move him down to the second tier, but will not do it because of the money he's raised and his halfway decent position in Iowa.

I am also halfway tempted to give Edwards no chance to win b/c he's taking public financing for his campaign, but I will not do it yet.

No much else to talk about in the Hillary Clinton coronation race yet.

Reps:  I have moved Huckabee down to third tier with his laughably bad fundraising numbers.  I know he's rising a bit in the polls, but if you don't have money to run a campaign, it's very hard to be candidate.  Witness Phil Gramm in 1996.  I am also halfway tempted to give Huckabee no chance to win, but rising poll numbers turns me away from that.

I have moved Ron Paul ahead of Tancredo in the third tier b/c of his strong fundraising.  Tancredo probably still polls above Paul, however.  To be frank, Huckabee has second tier polling numbers and third tier fundraising, whereas Paul has third tier polling numbers and second tier fundraising - thus the position both are in.

I really suspect that Fred Thompson needs to perform well in this first debate to have a chance.  Quite frankly, I think he did ok in raising money in Q3, but his speeches on the trail are just horrible.  He doesn't really inspire anyone.  So, if I see him acting crappy at the debate, I will probably put McCain over him in my rankings (McCain is far from dead, btw).

That's all.

[Sam Spade]

updated

[Sam Spade]

Updated.

[Sam Spade]

Since I tend to enjoy your thought process:

Why are you so down on Romney - in another thread, even ranking him below McCain?

I moved Romney back above McCain now.  He seems to be getting traction in South Carolina and has steady leads in Iowa and New Hampshire.  The problem with Romney remains the same problem as always - electability.  It will play a factor, give it time. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It might happen, it might not.  It's very hard to tell.  Part of it may depend on media reaction.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

He's not anymore.  Thompson's probably done, but for some reason I give him a slight shot.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

McCain's scenario depends on a win in New Hampshire, plain and simple.

Richardson scenario is dependent on him finishing second in Iowa, an opportunity that may be slipping away.

[Sam Spade]

AND - do you really feel that Obama has a better shot at his nomination than any non-Giuliani Republican does at theirs?

Because of the fights the each non-top tier Republican will have to go through to get at the lead, yes.  But the longer Romney stays on top in Iowa and New Hampshire, the higher his probability chances will be.

It's a long way off, still.

[Sam Spade]

Updated.  I might get my primary strategery analysis up soon, maybe not.