2008 nominations

In the 14 presidential elections beginning in 1952:

The Republicans have nominated
1 military officer (Dwight D. Eisenhower
2 state governors/former state governors (Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush)
6 incumbent presidents (Eisenhower 1956, Nixon 1972, Ford 1976, Reagan 1984, George H. W. Bush 1992, George W. Bush 2004)
2 U.S. Senators (Goldwater, Dole)
3 Vice-presidents/former Vice-Presidents (Nixon, Nixon, George H. W. Bush

The Democrats have nominated
5 state governors/former state governors (Stevenson 1952, Stevenson 1956, Carter 1976, Dukakis 1988, Clinton 1992)
3 incumbent presidents (Johnson 1964, Carter 1980, Clinton 1996)
2 Vice-presidents/former Vice-Presidents (Humphrey 1968, Mondale 1984, Gore 2000)
3 U.S. Senators (Kennedy, McGovern, Kerry)

So the Democrats have nominated U.S. Senators in only 3 of the last 14 presidential elections, while the Republicans have nominated 2.

So, the odds are not good for either Hilary or Obama. It would be foolish for anyone to base their political strategy for 2008 on either campaigning for or against Hilary or Obama or any of the other senators who are running as long there are any governors in the race.

I would not be one bit surprised to see the nomination of one (if not both) parties go to someone who enters the race just a month or so before the NH primary. As many candidates as there already are and as much money as they are raising, I would venture that the top tier candidates in both parties will tear themselves apart. For the first time in history the American electorate will be treated to a full year of active campaigning before the first vote is cast. Never before will active candidates have so much public exposure or so much opportunity to make mistakes.

 

This election is unlike any other: a) it is wide open (which hasn't happened for 80 or so years), b) it is off to a very early start, c) fundraising matters more than ever, d) the primary calendar is more of a cluster**** than ever, and e) there are more political "celebrities" in the race than ever before.

The field of candidates is pretty much set. Anyone entering the race now, nevermind at the last minute, is going to have a hard time catching up. Anyone entering the race a month or so before the NH primary doesn't have a shot in hell.

And while history may indicate otherwise, there are no strong governors this time around. Vilsack was a loser from the get-go and has already dropped out. Though, if there is a darkhorse in the Dem field, it is Richardson. But, while I think he could potentially do much better than some expect, he ultimately can't win.

Hillary or Edwards will be the Dem nominee.

 

While I agree with some of what you say, you're wrong in saying this this election is unique because it's off to "a very early start". Campaigning for the election of 1828 began almost immediately after JQA's 1824 "Corrupt Bargain" with Henry Clay.

Your assertion that fundraising is now "more important than ever" is also faulty. One need to only look back to Mark Hanna, William McKinley, William Jennings Bryan, and the election of 1896 to see this emergence of fundraising.

And I'm not sure what you mean by "political celebrities" but if I'm interpreting this right, the election of 1912 would be an example of an election comrpised of big names.

 

Ok, true. I should rephrase and add "in recent history". It is a unique election in terms of modern campaigning. The way campaigns were run in 1828, 1896, 1912, etc. is quite different from the way campaigns are run now and comparing then with now, while you can claim similarities, is an unfair comparison.

And, to clarify, my assertion that fundraising is more important than ever centers around the packing of the primary calendar. With so many states moving up their primaries (in particular the likely very large grouping of states on Feb. 5th), it adds emphasis to fundriasing as it will require more media buys (and in some major/very expensive media markets), more staff, and just more resources in general.

 

Fair enough.