Expert Analysis of Dem Candidates:
John Kerry has successfully created a bit of an aura of inevitability around his campaign. He has the best and widest national organization (only Gephardt and Edwards come close), and has raised a lot of money. Because he got out there early, and has had the frontrunner mantle applied to him, he polls well even in states where he has no natural base, like South Carolina. Those numbers are soft, and can be swayed by other contenders. But since the field is so divided, it could be hard for any one individual to emerge as a real threat.
Dick Gephardt has unions and has lots of longtime activist ties. He’s been around so long that everyone knows him and a lot of them owe him. He wisely started out quietly, collecting chits and laying groundwork while the other candidates sniped at one another. And now, his health proposals have him back on the front pages, just in time for the first debate. The key to his success comes down to whether the unions will stick with him. He could outflank Kerry to the left; among the serious contenders, only Dean is pitching as much to the progressive wing.
Bob Graham is the perfect candidate on paper. He has the experience, and is running on an issue -- homeland security -- that no other leading candidate is really focusing on. He comes off as moderate, and is from Florida, a key state with a certain emotional appeal for Democratic partisans. The problem? He is stultifyingly dull, and comes off as a bit goofy. His heart surgery and late campaign start will not help him much, either, and he inspires little passion even among supporters. The upside? A few top Edwards people have defected to Graham, which signifies life in his campaign.
John Edwards is fourth in my ranking, but seems to be fading a bit. Yes, he raised a lot of money, and he has organized well. But his numbers are dead in the water, and he has lost a lot of staff --a sign of dissension as well as a general feeling that Edwards is a dead end. While he is charismatic and plays well as a moderate, Democratic activists are having a hard time finding a rationale for his candidacy. There are other moderates and youngish senators in the field, and with Graham, another Southerner. Edwards’s inexperience could prove devastating against a wartime president, and his debating skills leave a lot to be desired. And he would probably lose his home state. I think Edwards is running primarily because he thinks he’ll lose his Senate seat, so it’s up or out. It’s out (and I think he’ll be out of the Senate, too).
Howard Dean surprised many with the strength of his early campaign. He smartly moved left, found support there, then made Iraq his issue. He collected a few early endorsements, and got out on the campaign trail early enough to get attention. And he makes party activists swoon. Unfortunately for him, Dean has probably peaked too early. He has fought his way into the top tier of candidates, and will stay there, but it will be hard for him to keep up his latest-thing appeal for the eight months until the voting starts.
Joe Lieberman might as well quit now. His campaign has been a disaster, through no fault of his own. There’s just no place for him in the field. His support of the war in Iraq was sincere, and in the long run politically smart, but it killed him in Iowa, where he has dropped from 17% to 9%, falling among the also-rans. He is a New Englander but is not seen as a major contender in New England. For a long time, his campaign said he would focus on South Carolina, where he polls well, but since Kerry started targeting the state and Graham got in the race, Lieberman has shifted focus to Arizona. That’s a bad sign; how far down the list can he go when Arizona is targeted next? His reception there has been ambivalent as well. And his fundraising is anemic. I would not be surprised if Lieberman gave up before the end of this year. |
