Fred and Newt bring significant personal baggage.

What baggage does Fred Thompson bring? The recent slip in Law & Order ratings?

Obama got 70% of the votes cast; 3.5 million voted for him.

That represents 54% of the 6.44 million registered voters, and 36.8% of the approx. 9.5 million eligible to vote.

To the extent that Political Science (ie try to tease something useful out of very small data sets with a constantly varying background) means anything, the evidence of the past has been that the current (ie post1972) nomination process is something of a sham, that the real work happens in the “Invisible Primary” which consists of obtainining the endorsement/support of ward leaders and higher in the party. This seems to be a significantly more important factor than national popularity, popularity amongst party members, money raised, etc.
Everything I see leads me to believe that HC is far ahead on this score.

On the Republican side, amusing as it is to see the party imploding, I cannot see any of the three stooges as being especially popular to ward leaders, so god knows what will happen.

One could argue that the internet changes everything, that whereas in 1996 or whatever the rank and file voted as the ward leaders told them to/suggested they do, now they have enough info to behave differently. Perhaps, although my guess would be that, while this may be true in the future, we aren’t there yet.

As for the election, the most significant driver (from what I can remember)) is the state of the economy at the time of the election (not what is was like average over the last 4 years, or what it looks like it’s headed to). War’s being lost don’t help, though there are few data points. Desire for change (ie switch parties just for the sake of switching) is not insignificant. My guess would be that the perfect storm we’re headed to as housing collapses, trade imbalance is out of control, money is wasted on the military rather than anything more useful, health-care continues to rise, etc, will break before the election, and not early enough before that it could somehow be hidden in time. So my guess (based on the best the limited science of this field has to say, rather than my hopes and dreams) would be that the dem nominee becomes president, and that that nominee will be Ms Clinton.

(VP? I know of no research that tracks that, which means no more than that my knowledge of this subject is very limited. Presumably it will be whoever of Obama and Edwards is perceived as being more likely to pull in the marginal Republican voter. On those grounds, my guess would be that, sorry Obama, it’ll be Edwards not you.)

Does anyone know why he is not running?
Does he think he has little chance?
Does he fear something if he runs?
Or is he just lurking for the right moment? Or he has had enough?

My preference would be a duo of Gore as president and Obama as VP.

Whoever becomes the next president, I’m afraid he/she will inherit a financial and deplomatic mess.

Here’s some food for thought. If American voters have learned anything is that the next president and his administration must be evaulated on competency.

Senators have a poor track record of becoming presidents. They rarely are given any opportunities to make decisions (rather they get lumped in for being part of the “wheel-spinning” that is our Congress).

Governors and big city mayors can generally use their track record of leadership as a resume for being a good president. What do senators use as their track record?

Hillary voted for the war and then against it. What did we learn from John Kerry’s attempt to explain that? The public doesn’t buy it! John McCain is so desperate to become president that he’ll say or do anything for one more vote (which will cost him two votes in the process).

So, with all that being said, I think it’s going to come down to whether Barack Obama can withstand the pressure and scrutiny of a presidential race (without imploding like Howard Dean) and whether Rudy Guiliani being able to deal with his closet skeletons like Bill Clinton did in ‘92.

Between Obama and Hillary, my bet is on Hillary. She’s got a hell of a lot more money, and that’s the name of the game in American politics. Obama will be “the people’s choice,” lose because he lacks “experience,” and he will get a ton of brownie points from the Dem Leadership Committee (DLC) for stumping for Hillary.

Unless the GOP digs up an anti-war/harsh war critic who is also conservative enough to get the base of their party (pro-war pro-gun Christian fanatics) excited, 2008 is out of the question. Or if the U.S. wins the war in Iraq (haha).

But for that matter so does Rudy….

Elliot

Equally important is the fact that he has good political sense. (Which has been evident in both my personal conversations with him and in observing his (successful) campaign for US Senate.) Knowing how to manuever in a political environment is not a negative — it’s an essential prerequisite. A president who expects to accomplish anything needs this skill in order to work effectively with Congress and with leaders from around the world. And a candidate needs it to get elected.
Early in his Senate campaign we held a fundraiser for him, and I was told by many people many times over that it was a waste of time because he could never get elected (his name was strange, he was running against the Chicago democratic machinery, etc). He campaigned in a strong, consistent and dignified manner, and was eleceted because the more people got to hear and see him, the more impressed they were. Suburban Republican friends who have never voted off the GOP ticket are now supporters.

He still has a lot to learn re a presidential election (as does every first time candidate) but he showed an amazing ability to learn and grow over the course of his Senate campaign — another vital characteristic in a candidate for a position that will require the ability to learn and adapt to whatever is happening in the world.

As for not fleshing out detailed plans, I suspect that may be political good sense. Presidential campaigns have traditionally been content-lite. Barack did come out strongly, vocally and consistently against the Iraq war at a time when very few other political figures were willing to so much as give the appearance of questioning the administration. Read his speech from the fall of 2002
http://www.barackobama.com/2002/10/26/remarks_of_illinois_state_sen.php