An Early Prediction

Introduction
It is impossible to say with any certainty what WILL happen in the upcoming presidential campaign. Nonetheless, I would like to offer an idea as to what MIGHT happen followed by my thoughts on the process and my current preferences.

Early signs indicate this election cycle might very well be unprecedented in many respects. First, the amount of money being raised each quarter continues to be record-setting. Second, the number of debates and candidates on each side are quite high. Third, it's been 80 years since there was no incumbent president or vice president running for nomination. Finally, the threat of terrorism in the nation and world will continue to be a factor. In the end, however, I believe the deciding factors will be the state of the economy (for all Americans) and the War in Iraq, NOT national security or terrorism.

Before I address the 2008 presidential election in detail, I would like to mention a few caveats that might significantly influence the process. First, another major terrorist attack on United States soil will more than likely increase the support of Republican candidates, especially McCain and Giuliani. Of course, all of this depends on when and how such an event takes place. Another word of caution involves the possibility of a significant third party candidate. Nader has already mentioned the possibility of running again, and Bloomberg, despite saying he would not run, recently changed his party's affiliation to independent, and he continues to voice his opinions about issues facing presidential candidates. And there is also the possibility that the evangelical base of the Republican party might support a third party candidate or simply refuse to support the party's nomination for any number of reasons. Nonetheless, I don't see such a third party candidate getting much of the vote, perhaps 3-5% at the most. To a large extent, the battle lines have been drawn by the two major political parties since the 2000 election, and most voters are likely to fall along party lines with swing voters keeping the 2008 election within 3-5% points. Sound likes an interesting presidential election to me.

The Democrats
I will start with the Democrats since their field appears to be easier to prognosticate. Currently, Hillary Clinton is in a strong position to win the nomination for a variety of reasons. Name recognition and image are huge in politics, and Clinton is doing a good job of controlling both to her advantage. In the polls, Clinton has a national average lead of 17 points, and she is leading in most states including a 2 point lead in Iowa and 15 point lead in New Hampshire. A lot could happen between now and January 2008, but Clinton is a professional politician with a huge political machine, and I doubt she will be derailed.

Barack Obama and John Edwards appear to be the only candidates with a realistic chance of overtaking Clinton for the Democratic nomination. To a large extent, Obama is running as the candidate of change and Edwards is running as the anti-Clinton candidate. Edwards national poll average is 10.3 while Clinton's national average is 38.3. In fact, Al Gore (an undeclared candidate) is garnering more support than Edwards in some polls. In the Democratic Party, at least, it is clear that being pro-Clinton is more popular than being anti-Clinton. Again, I don't think much will happen between now and January 2008 to change this view.

If anyone can dethrone Clinton it will most likely be Obama who has gained enough support, both financial and human, to significantly challenge her for the nomination. Obama's national poll average is 21%, but even if he loses a couple of early states in the primaries and caucuses he will have enough money to compete on February 5, 2008 (Super Tuesday/National Primary) and beyond. Even so, I seriously doubt Obama will be able to overcome the well-oiled political machine of Clinton.

The Republicans
The Republican nomination, on the other hand, appears to be much more complicated. Early signs indicated that the nomination was going to Rudy Giuliani. Giuliani's national poll average has only dropped 4 points since he entered the presidential race in February 2007, but recent polls indicate that an increasing number of Republicans are unsure of who they would vote for in their party (currently 23%, up from 10% in March 2007). In the same poll, Giuliani received 29% (down from 36% in March 2007). Additionally, Fred Thompson has been polling in second place ahead of John McCain and Mitt Romney without officially being in the race. To complicate matters even more, Romney is ahead in Iowa and New Hampshire polls with 17- and 11-point leads respectively.

And we haven't even mentioned the significance of the evangelical base of the Republican Party. To my knowledge, no post-World War II Republican (including Nixon) has won the presidency without the support of the evangelical base, and I don't see 2008 being much different in this respect.

So how might the evangelical base influence the prospects of the Republican candidates?:
On immigration, abortion, and gay rights, Giuliani is more like independents and Democrats. According to Rasmussen Reports, 51% of Americans polled consider him a moderate or liberal. I wish Giuliani well, but I just don't see the evangelical base (a significant number) voting for him in the primaries or national election. Therefore, I don't think Giuliani gets the nomination. Giuliani's national poll average (28%) is already down 10 points from March 2007, when he peaked at 38%. He's also down 4 points from his initial national poll average of 32% in February 2007, and I think he will continue to fade as more and more evangelicals become familiar with his platform and his personal life. One of Giuliani's self-proclaimed strengths is national security, and I'm sure it's an important issue to many evangelicals. However, I cannot imagine national security trumping immigration, abortion, or gay rights.

McCain angered many evangelicals in the 2000 presidential campaign when he openly criticized conservative Christian leaders as being "agents of intolerance." McCain has since apologized and even sought the support of those he criticized. This move alone should be enough to convince you that the support of the evangelical base is a significant component of the Republican nomination. McCain's support has dropped among independents, in part, due to his ongoing support of the War in Iraq, and his support among Republicans has dropped to an extent because of his so-called "amnesty" for illegal immigrants. McCain will probably continue to fade before surging at some point in the election, only to drop out in the end.

Before moving on to other Republicans, it is important to remember the caveat I proposed earlier in this essay. That is, Giuliani and McCain gain support, enough to get the nomination, if the US is attacked again. However, I think the majority of support that pushes Giuliani or McCain ahead will come from Reagan Democrats, undecided independents, and secular Republicans, NOT evangelicals. Sure, some evangelicals might "hold their noses" while they pull the lever for Giuliani or McCain, but I suspect many evangelicals will simply stay home on election day 2008 if they don't like the candidates. Their silent protest will not be aimed at anyone in particular. Instead, I believe the protest will have more to do with the unusual amount of stench originating from Washington DC, both Republican and Democratic (Larry Craig, David Vitter, William Jefferson, Duke Cunningham, Mark Foley, Tom DeLay, Alberto Gonzales, Bob Ney, Jack Abramoff).

That leaves us with Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson, and a dark horse named Mike Huckabee. Nominating Romney (at age 60, looks younger) or Huckabee (age 52) would be better for the future and image of the Republican Party (Thompson is 65). But Romney's Mormonism might not play well with the evangelical base among others. According to a recent Pew Research poll, 25% of Americans would be less likely to support a candidate for president who is Mormon. Mormons are in third place only behind Muslims (45%) and Atheists (61%). In the same poll, Americans would only be 6% less likely to vote for a black candidate for president. One's religion appears to be more important than one's skin color. Another problem for Romney is his change of opinion with regard to abortion. Actually, I think this is less of an issue than his religion. Despite his change of mind, at least Romney has ended up on the side that evangelicals favor; that is "pro-life".

An ideal candidate for the evangelicals is Huckabee. He is similar enough to all the other Republican candidates with three significant distinctions: he's always been "pro-life," he doesn't believe in evolution, and he's a Baptist preacher. Nonetheless, Huckabee remains a relative unknown among the Republican pack. But there are signs that this is changing. Huckabee's national poll average is up to nearly 4%, and he finished second in the Ames, Iowa Republican Straw Poll (Giuliani, McCain, and Thompson did not compete). Huckabee's national average was nearly dead at 0-1% as late as May 2007. Huckabee is starting to show signs of life, but he must make more significant gains in the polls between now and January 2008 or he will continue to maintain his lower-tier/possible vice-president status.

So how does Thompson figure in to the equation? Thompson has been criticized for waiting to officially enter the race (He officially announced on September 5, 2007). I don't blame him for waiting until after Labor Day to announce, but if he did in fact manipulate the political system to his advantage then he should be held accountable. As for entering the race late, couldn't it be that the others entered too soon (as early as January 2007)? It sounds like Thompson has a 6-month strategy, one which allows him to enter the race in September 2007, and know whether or not he is the nominee by the end of February 2008. In this day and age, that is more than enough time for the media and the public to get to know a candidate.

But one issue that may upset the evangelical base are allegations that Thompson lobbied for a pro-abortion rights group in the early 1990s. So far, it seems as though Thompson has been able to deflect this, and I suspect he's folksy enough to continue to do so throughout the campaign. Compared to Giuliani and Romney, I believe Thompson will be more effective at explaining any concerns regarding abortion (or any issue). One clear advantage for Thompson is that he appears to be more skillful and comfortable at speaking with the "common" person. Personally, I do not think this characteristic should be a prerequisite for the presidency, but it's an important factor for many people and therefore considered an advantage. (This is also an advantage for Huckabee).

And I just don't believe pundits and others who say Romney has the most to lose from Thompson entering the race. During Thompson's "exploratory period," both Thompson and Romney's national poll averages went up while Giuliani's and McCain's went down. It appears as though Giuliani and McCain have the most to lose from a Thompson campaign. And despite the decreased likelihood that Americans will vote for someone who is Mormon, Romney's personal life is more in line with what evangelicals and Catholics usually expect from their candidates. Even so, I don't believe Romney can garner enough support to win the nomination.

What's interesting is Jeb Bush's absence from the 2008 presidential election. I believe Jeb has seriously considered running, but he realizes the chances for another Bush aren't so good this election cycle. However, I suppose we will hear from Jeb or another Bush in 2012 and beyond.

Final Analysis
The Democrats are probably even more likely than 2004 to nominate a candidate they believe is the most electable. Eights years of Bush II has perhaps strengthened Clinton's chances, while the Republican Party struggles to find someone like Ronald Reagan. I say Clinton's chances are strengthened because the Democrats are also being nostalgic. The Democrats are looking for someone like Bill Clinton, the last (elected) two-term Democratic president since Franklin D. Roosevelt (1933-45). So I think Hillary Clinton gets the nomination barring any major scandals (like Lewinsky) or surprises (like Gore entering the race).

As for Clinton's running mate, I suspect it will be a white male. Clinton is relatively progressive, but she's certainly not a dumb politician. Choosing a minority for VP (Richardson, Obama, or another female) would certainly be progressive and bold, but not so politically smart. Regardless of Clinton's popularity, a ticket with two minorities would be a hard sale in many places. I imagine Clinton has already figured this out. I also imagine Clinton thinks she needs to appear strong (even hawkish) when it comes to national security. Therefore, I suppose Clinton will choose a white male with some military background. Who might that be? My best guess would be Wesley Clark. Another guess might be Jim Webb.

The Republicans, on the other hand, will continue to struggle with the legacy of Reagan. I believe the Republican nomination will ultimately be a dogfight between Thompson and Romney until February 5th (Super Tuesday). Once the smoke clears, I think Thompson will edge out Romney by the end of February. One significant reason: I just don't see the evangelical base supporting a Mormon. I don't think this is fair, but I do think this is how it will play out.

And I suspect Thompson will select someone he's comfortable with for vice-president and not someone who makes more political sense. Therefore, I believe Thompson will choose someone from the South instead of a more strategic pick. Who might that be? Mike Huckabee, Mark Sanford or Newt Gingrich. If Clinton gets the Democratic nomination, choosing Huckabee might serve to counter the influence of Clinton in Arkansas. Another possible VP candidate is Mark Sanford, current governor of South Carolina. He's a Washington "outsider" with a fresh, young face (age 47) and no apparent baggage. Gingrich, on the other hand, seems like more of a gamble. I'm not sure what kind of relationship Thompson has with Gingrich, but it appears like Gingrich might have too much baggage to be an effective VP candidate. And I've also heard rumors on the Internet of Thompson selecting Condoleezza Rice as VP. This would be very progressive and bold, but I seriously doubt it will happen. Even more unlikely is Jeb Bush as VP.

So here's my early prediction:
Democrats: Clinton (VP = Clark or Webb)
Republicans: Thompson (VP = Huckabee or Sanford)

Research the Candidates on the Internet:
As for the other candidates on both sides (Richardson, Dodd, Biden, Kucinich, Gravel, Brownback, Hunter, Paul, and Tancredo), I will discuss them in a section below entitled My Current Preferences. And please take time to visit and research all of the candidates at their official websites:

Republicans:
Sam Brownback
Mike Huckabee
Duncan Hunter
Rudy Giuliani
John McCain
Ron Paul
Mitt Romney
Tom Tancredo
Fred Thompson

Democrats:
Joe Biden
Hillary Clinton
Chris Dodd
John Edwards
Mike Gravel
Dennis Kucinich
Barack Obama
Bill Richardson

Independents:
Blake Ashby of Missouri
Don Cordell of California
Joe Schriner of Ohio
Jon A Greenspon of California
Brad Lord-Leutwyler of Nevada
Charles T. Maxham of New Jersey
James H. Mccall of Ohio
David J. Masters of North Carolina
Donald K. Allen of Ohio
Steve Adams of Kentucky
David Koch of Utah
John Taylor Bowles of South Carolina
Bob W. Hargis of Oklahoma
Thomas J. Kozee Jr. of Ohio

Others:
Potential Green Party Candidates
Libertarian Party
Constitution Party

My Thoughts on the Political Process:
It is becoming more evident that presidential elections in the United States are becoming more dependent on the power of money and less dependent on the power of the individual voter. Why must one have to raise MILLIONS of dollars in order to make a serious run for president? It sounds like we need serious campaign finance reform, and I praise John McCain, Russ Feingold, and even Fred Thompson (and others) for realizing that.

And the primaries and caucuses are also starting to get out of hand with many states trying to move ahead of Iowa and New Hampshire. I don't blame them. There should be a federal system in place that rotates a region of states every four years, so each region of states gets to go first at some point. Why should other states sit around while Iowa and New Hampshire always enjoy the spotlight and influence that comes along with being first?

There should also be a recycled paper trail of every vote placed in every state and every district. Some states are already doing this, but all of them should be required to do so. In addition to voting by mail, there should be a mandatory period of one weekend in which all polls are opening for voting. We might also want to think about compulsory voting. There are currently 32 countries with compulsory voting, including Australia where voter turnout averages 95%.

My Current Preferences:
I am still researching all the presidential candidates, and I am unlikely to make a decision until the spring of 2008. As an independent, I'm unlikely to be able to vote in the primaries in my state. However, if I were able to vote in the primaries, I would currently CONSIDER the following:
Giuliani for the Republicans
Barack Obama, John Edwards, or Joe Biden for the Democrats
Ralph Nader for the Green Party
Unfortunately, I do not know enough about the other third party candidates to make a consideration at this time.

Ideally, I'd prefer a "change" candidate outside of the two-party system with a respectable chance of winning or seriously challenging the Democrats or Republicans. Currently, no one seems to fit that ideal, not even Nader. Therefore, I have started to look at other options. Giuliani is somewhat appealing because he appears to be a moderate politician outside the Capital Beltway, but he is not adequately addressing the issues most important to me. Edwards has already had a shot at the White House and couldn't even carry his home state of North Carolina in 2004. Nonetheless, Edwards is humble enough to admit his mistakes, and he seems to have gained an unusual spark along the way that deserves a second look. Biden seems like one of the most reasonable, intelligent candidates, but he has a tendency to be abrasive at times. For the time being, I will have to say that Obama is my current preference for a variety of reasons: he represents the most reasonable form of change (albeit within the Democratic party), he seems genuinely interested in bipartisanship and diplomacy, he is trying hard to stay above the fray of traditional political bickering, and he is addressing issues that concern me (see list below). Even so, it is still too early to make a decision, and I have not researched third party candidates enough.

Issues that are most important to me:
1. Health care reform
2. War in Iraq (ending it, that is; 8 billion $ and 64 soldiers a month)
3. Economy (fair trade and jobs)
4. Energy conservation and reform
5. National security
6. Campaign finance reform

Brownback, Hunter, Paul, and Tancredo on the Republican side seem to be too divisive and radical for the current state of the nation. The same goes for Kucinich and Gravel on the Democratic side. The nation now needs a "healer", and I doubt they would be up for the task. McCain is for more war, and I'm not. But I am still uncertain about Huckabee, Thompson, and Giuliani. The same uncertainty goes for Richardson, Dodd, and Clinton on the Democratic side.

Clinton is perhaps the Democrats best chance of winning the presidency, and the Democrats are certainly addressing more of the issues I'm most concerned about this election cycle. Nonetheless, I find it difficult to embrace her candidacy as something the country needs at this moment. She seems too much like a professional politician who makes every effort to stay on script with the latest talking points. Haven't we had enough of this? Clinton has not admitted her mistake in voting to authorize the War in Iraq, yet she seems more than willing to blame Bush for waging war she helped approve. And I have a strange feeling she will not bring the troops home from Iraq anytime soon if she is elected president. To get a better idea of why I'm leery of Clinton, please read this article from The Nation.

Some Democrats believe nominating Clinton will only serve to solidify the Republicans and others against the Democrats. Other Democrats believe Clinton's unfavorable ratings are too high to get elected. I agree with these statements to a certain extent. Clinton is certainly unpopular among the vast majority of Republicans. And Clinton's unfavorable ratings are high (39%) but not higher than Bush's (46%) before he was re-elected in 2004 (Pew Research poll). Despite these disadvantages, Clinton still has an average lead over every Republican candidate in head-to-head match-ups. Granted, it's still too soon to predict how her negatives would play out in the general election. Some say her negatives have already played themselves out, but I tend to disagree.

Like I said before, I believe the nation needs someone who will help depolarize the ugly divide between the right and left, and I just don't think she's the person for such a job. I believe the country deserves more than Bushes and Clintons. The nation is ripe for change and Hillary represents more of the same stale fruit Washington DC has to offer.

Currently, I believe Obama and Edwards offer the best medicine for America, and I wish them well. However, the odds are in Clinton's favor, and if she is humble enough to admit mistakes and offer the vice-presidency to Obama and Edwards, I will consider her candidacy. Even then, it would be a difficult pill for me to swallow, and there's no guarantee of recovery. Stay tuned...