Washington – Labor Day weekend found the presidential candidates crisscrossing Iowa and New Hampshire as if the election were weeks away. What happens from here will matter far more than what has happened up to now, but the first eight months of 2007 have delivered on predictions that this would be one of the most interesting and consequential campaigns of modern times.
On the Democratic side, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York remains the front-runner, but Barack Obama’s prodigious fundraising and passionate crowds continue to make the Illinois senator an intriguing rival. Former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina has staked his hopes on Iowa, and so far Iowans remain open to him. The rest of the Democratic field is starting to make noise, though their odds remain long.
For Republicans, the contest is about to change with this week’s entry of former Sen. Fred D. Thompson of Tennessee. He will join former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, Sen. John McCain of Arizona and maybe former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee in a contest still in search of clarity and definition.
To help make sense of what has happened and where things may be heading, think of the next four months – until January, when actual voters will finally start to make choices that count – in terms of seven questions. For answers to them, we sought out strategists in both parties, based in Washington and around the country. Most replied by e-mail, a few spoke by phone, some had the courage of their convictions and were willing to be quoted by name, and others chose to offer candid assessments only if they were not identified.
1. Is the Clinton campaign a true juggernaut – or is that just what she wants everyone to believe?
Not a juggernaut, but it is seen as the best campaign on the block right now.
“Hillary is for real and will be difficult for any of her Democratic opponents to derail,” wrote Neil Newhouse, a Republican pollster who jointly conducts the NBC-Wall Street Journal poll. “She simply doesn’t make mistakes and is running a pretty disciplined campaign.”
But no one is ready to call the Democratic race for Clinton. Things happen unexpectedly, and as one Democratic strategist put it: “While the Clinton campaign is flawlessly ticking along, in the YouTube world of politics today, things can shift quickly. And that’s where the resources and infrastructure of Obama’s campaign could make a difference.”
Second, the race looks far different in Iowa than it does nationally. One Democrat pointed to Clinton’s weakness: “When you talk to people outside of Washington, D.C., and New York, they are not convinced about Clinton. Particularly in the South, they think she will cost Democrats seats in the legislature – and self-preservation counts.”
But is Obama up to the battle? Some Democrats and Republicans expressed doubts. “Obama has lost his mojo, but he has a little bit of time to find it,” one former Bush White House official said.
2. Is there a front-runner among Republicans?
Yes. Two, actually, depending on how you read the race and history: Giuliani and Romney.
By one historical parallel, Giuliani is on a path to win. Every Republican since Eisenhower who has led the field in the Gallup poll taken around the Labor Day before the primaries has won the nomination. George W. Bush, Bob Dole, George H.W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, Richard Nixon, Barry Goldwater – all led as the campaign passed the Labor Day marker.
Interpret history another way and you conclude that Romney is well-positioned to win. He has staked his hopes on Iowa and New Hampshire and on generating momentum, what the elder Bush called in 1980 the “Big Mo” after winning the Iowa caucuses, only to fall to Reagan in New Hampshire.
But Romney faces tough odds. No Republican in the modern era has won both Iowa and New Hampshire. If Romney breaks that pattern, he could be hard to beat. If he fails, the calendar could open up for Giuliani or someone else: Thompson, McCain or perhaps Huckabee.
3. Is anyone on either side positioned to break into the top tier?
There was a near-unanimous view that, among Republicans, only Huckabee has the potential to do so. But it will be very difficult.
Huckabee has been inching his way upward. His debates have been solid; his conservative conviction, clever one-liners and upbeat personality have won him strong reviews; and he has caught the eye of Democrats as well. But with Giuliani, Romney, Thompson and McCain as competition, the opportunity to break through is limited. Still, he is the most likely to surprise one of those big four come the early states.
On the Democratic side, the challenge is even greater. A New Hampshire-based Democrat said New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson is best positioned to move up. Sen. Christopher Dodd of Connecticut is looking for a boost from his endorsement by the International Association of Fire Fighters.
But Clinton, Obama and Edwards (in Iowa, at least) take up so much space, and the two leaders have so much money, that the others face long odds.
4. Does the new, turbo-charged calendar make Iowa and New Hampshire more important – or less?
More important, unless they aren’t – and that’s not as odd as it sounds.
In the Democratic field, none of the candidates is acting as if any states matter more than Iowa and New Hampshire. Democrats say if Clinton wins Iowa, she will be extremely difficult to stop, short of some unexpected event.
“I do think (Iowa and New Hampshire) are at least as important as before,” wrote strategist Jim Margolis, who is working for Obama. “Everything’s on speed.”
“It’s made it more important because on the Democratic side, it could produce a giant-killer,” said Gina Glantz, who was Sen. Bill Bradley’s campaign manager in 2000.
On the Republican side, the calculations are different. Giuliani’s strategy is based on reaping a big batch of delegates on Feb. 5. But the idea that he will ignore Iowa and New Hampshire has been put to rest by his burst of activity in those states.
If there is no clarity coming out of the early states, the new calendar will take hold.
“The new system makes the early states really important, but you still need the money to compete in the mass of primaries that hit February 5th,” said John G. Geer, a political scientist at Vanderbilt University.
That means alternative strategies could be winning strategies in 2008, and the real day of reckoning for Iowa and New Hampshire may be in 2012, not next year.
5. Is it too late for Al Gore or Newt Gingrich to get into the race?
In a word, yes. Not that they couldn’t jump in.
“It’s not too late for Al Gore and Newt to get in, but it’s certainly too late for either of them to win,” Republican pollster Neil Newhouse said.
Thompson’s entry means far less room for Gingrich, and the former House speaker carries very high negatives. Gore enjoys significant popularity among Democrats, but because Democrats are happy with their candidates, there is no real yearning for him to enter.
“The only reason is if he thought no one was going to challenge” Clinton, said a veteran of Gore’s 2000 campaign.
6. Do ideas matter in this election?
Yes, but no candidate has yet seized the mantle of the ideas candidate – though Edwards has certainly tried.
“Ideas do matter,” a GOP strategist said. “The American people are sick of the nonsense. They’re cynical. They’re angry, they’re sick of the status quo. … They’re looking for someone to call them to action. … I don’t think anyone has effectively done that so far.”
Democratic pollster Geoffrey Garin said the important ideas are not position papers but something larger: “What matters are big ideas about what’s at the root of our problems and what kind of leadership it will take to fix it.”
Reagan in 1980 and Clinton in 1992 found that chord.
“I don’t think anyone has risen to that level yet.”
7. When do I really need to start paying attention?
There are several possible starting points for when things really start to matter.
Now that we’re past the Labor Day gate, candidates should begin to engage one another more directly, and the substantive arguments will intensify. Al Gore regained lost ground in the fall of 1999 with an attack against Sen. Bill Bradley on health care.
But even in the early states, many voters don’t get serious until much closer to the contests, as Iowa showed in 2004 and as New Hampshire has demonstrated any number of times.
One Democrat said most people could wait until a month before the Iowa caucuses to start paying close attention. But another strategist said the early calendar, the extraordinary intensity of this campaign and the high stakes mean everyone should start paying attention between now and Thanksgiving to understand the candidates.
Some voters may prefer to take their lead from results in the early states, she said, but added, “If you’re making up your own mind, you should start now.”
