Centerfield

Recent polls of Democrats (conducted before the recent Obama media coverage) had Edwards out in front:

John Edwards 36%
Hillary Clinton 16%
Barack Obama 13%
Tom Vilsack 11%

Of course, as you said, this is all pretty early, but it can't be a good sign for Vilsack if he's that low at this point. I would have imagined, being a local boy, him starting much higher than this.

That makes some sense since Edwards has been campaigning in Iowa and did well there in 2004. However, I think once Vilsack really gets going he will win the state he was a popular Governor in; furthermore, I think the fact that Obama is close by in Illinois will help him in Iowa. I see Obama and then Edwards finishing a close two and three. I don't think Edwards' new found labor support will put him over the popularity of Obama. Again, we are all but guessing at this point. It is a realistic possibility, IMO, that the field is wiped out before the Iowa caucus by the popularity of Obama and his ability to raise money, unless of course he has some bumps in the road between now and then.

The handicapping is interesting and just may be the closest to what may actually happen if all enter the race and stay.
I look forward to seeing it updated and perfected.

Big shame. At least they still have one candidate on the list with experience as a governor.

Yeah, because 2 terms as wife of the President leaves someone completely without any relevant experience, right Susan? LOL

Well, a lot of people are sold on the whole "Governors beat Senators" thing, Brian. I'm personally not a believer in that argument, primarily because I believe that 9/11 sufficiently changed the political landscape such that the voters are going to want to see their Presidential candidates have greater foreign policy experience than they did in recent elections- and Governors are at a significant disadvantage in that respect.

But there were some at this time last year- on this blog, no less- who were strenuously advocating that Gov. Warner had a near-lock on the Democratic nomination primarily on the basis of that argument, and (since he's withdrawn) are now ignoring that argument while more or less advocating for Senator Obama on other grounds.

I don't remember anyone arguing that Warner was a near-lock, but it was a while back.

My own argument for Obama, such as it is, is simply that he's a fairly singular phenomena at this point. I find this much buzz this early pretty surprising. And I also find that the quality of the buzz is unusual in the sense that it suggests Obama is singularly charismatic. Not in terms of charisma level, but in terms of the type of charisma, a perception on the part of the likers that he is honest and sincere and really understands.

I don't disagree with anyone who says "whoa, wait a minute, it's a long uphill climb for anyone, and Obama faces a series of singular challenges because he is black and can be cast as too liberal and too inexperienced." It's not that there is nothing to that. I just wonder whether these things will stick, and am emphasizing that he's got serious early MO that bears watching because it's a bigger and higher-quality Mo than we've seen lately. Nothing wrong with comparing him to others whose early big mo evaporated, unless you are doing so simply in order to dismiss the phenomenon as not worth keeping an eye on.

And I'm happy to acknowledge that governor-experience is a worthwhile resume line. I think many folks like to see it. But it's far from being so important that a lack of governor experience is a disqualifier. The thing I like best of all the things I've read lately on this topis is the notion that individuals will trust their own measure of a candidate. And what I'd add is that the constellation of things each of us use in doing the measuring will vary, both from person to person and from time to time.

So as you say, there's probably a discount on the value of governorship experience when foreign policy issues are in the forefront. And as I've already suggested, there may a discount on the value of experience as a whole when the times suggest that the people with experience who have been running things have done a poor job. I think that currently poses a problem for the GOP candidates as well as for many of the established faces of the democtratic party. I think Gore, Kerry, and to some extent Edwards have discounted experience in that they are associated with failure(to win in past elections). Hillary gets a boost due to the Clinton record in the eyes of Democrats. I think Guiliani gets a premium on his experience because of positive associations with his post-9/11 actions. I think McCain doesn't get too much of a discount because of his outsider brand, but I think he'll have an extremely difficult time selling "straight up that hill."

Romney? We'll have to see what his brand smells like when he crafts something in the wake of his extended overseas travel. My prediction? A Kerry-esque let's have our cake and eat it too, strongly in favor of all good things, schmorgasboard of vagueries. (Vagueries is not, so far as I know, a word, but I think everyone knows what I mean, which is something a bit different from vagaries.)

On the Senator/Governor argument:

Could it be that the Senator's who have been nominated for the White House have been either (a) unelectable, or (b) complete boobs.

John Kerry (boob)
Bob Dole (unelectable)
George McGovern (boob)
Walter Mondale (unelectable - he was Vice President after the Senate - might have made a good President)
Hubert Humphrey (unelectable - he was also Vice Presient after the Senate - IMO, would have made an outstanding President)

If every Governor that was nominated ran as cowardly as Michael Dukakis did in 1988, we would be saying exactly the opposite.

But there were some at this time last year- on this blog, no less- who were strenuously advocating that Gov. Warner had a near-lock on the Democratic nomination primarily on the basis of that argument, and (since he's withdrawn) are now ignoring that argument while more or less advocating for Senator Obama on other grounds.

If that is a crack at me, you are confused. I was arguing Warner would get the nomination because he was a Governor in a Redstate who did a bang up job, not that he would get it solely because he was a Governor. If it isn't a crack at me, then nevermind. I DO believe that being a Governor gives you the experience of running a fairly large government at the executive level, which is a good perception if you are trying to look Presidential.

IMO, Edwards, Clinton, and Obama give off a Presidential vibe that other Senators have failed at because of their public image or their charisma. I'll leave it to you to decide which has charisma and which has the right public image.

A Kerry-esque let's have our cake and eat it too, strongly in favor of all good things, schmorgasboard of vagueries.

In other words, a flip-flopper!

Yeah, because 2 terms as wife of the President leaves someone completely without any relevant experience, right Susan?

I would have to agree, and would argue that besides McCain, Hillary looks the most Presidential out of the bunch, on image alone. Considering that she is a woman, I think that is a HUGE advantage that may will her to the nomination.

Matt, how can Romney be a flip-flopper on foreign policy when he doesn't even have one yet?

Ronmey is not a flip-flopper. ( I don't think Kerry is either.) They're fence-sitters.

Brian,

Mmmm... I could go with that. However, you can bet your ass that it will be the label that puts his candidacy into the ground.

No senator (without experience as a governor) has been elected president since Kennedy, and I don't think there are many before him either.

This despite a rather large number of senators (without experience as a governor) having run for the presidency, and having won party nomination.

So yeah, I think former governors are more likely to ultimately be elected president than senators without experience as a governor.

"Yeah, because 2 terms as wife of the President leaves someone completely without any relevant experience, right Susan? LOL"

Um does that mean you are willing to hire my wife as a Network Engineer, Brian? She's never heard of a subnet mask... but we've been married for 5 years... that's gotta mean she can do the job, right?

Oh, I wouldn't disagree for a second with the idea that recent history suggests an ex-governor is more likely to get elected President than an ex-senator.

But your "since Kennedy" represents a true sample size of what? Especially when one wonders how to consider the subsets of "governor who were senators too" and "presidents who weren't elected. " LBJ, Nixon, and Ford were all ex-senators who became President, so how exactly do you count them? If you throw out 68, and 72 and count 76, we only have a sample size of 8 Presidential elections to go on. During that time we had our fair share of ex-senators who were at least good enough to win one party's nomination, even though they lost. Isn't it a leap to suggest that they all lost because they were senators when the more parsimonious explanation is that they had serious charisma deficits in comparision to their opponents?

If you are a senator who is uncharismatic and an uncompelling public speaker, you will surely have a problem winning the Presidency. Is the problem your resume or your personality?