'08 Elections: Early Reviews of the Previews

At this critical juncture of the Presidential race, in which all of us (even those few of us in a couple of predominantly-white swing states) can do nothing except hold our breath and wait, I suggest we pause. Just for laughs, or for rigor, or mortis, it might pay for me to own up to my prior previews and see how well I've handicapped events to date.

It might also be opportune to look at just how realistic those ancient scenarios are today as previews for what might be coming in the near future.


The Scenario of the Two Divergent Triangles

My first effort was an exceedingly long attempt which posted a couple of weeks before the 2006 elections. In an effort to keep from stressing out, I was looking beyond them to this '08 electoral contests.

In each of the Democratic and Republican nomination races, I foresaw at that time the likelihood of a three-way race, something that still seems likely for each. I found the prospective Republican race much more dependent on the '06 outcomes than the Dems'.

I was pessimistic for '06, giving "a 32% chance Dems win H of R this year; 20% chance they win Senate, so that's my guess as of October 15, 2006--".

Regardless of '06, though, I saw the Democratic race as ending up being a three-way race between Hillary, a "Clinton Centrist Challenger" and what I called "XXX", and meant the consensus choice of the Netroots and the left. At the moment , casting was wide open for "CCC" (Mark Warner had just dropped out), while I thought Feingold or Gore would end up with the "XXX" constituency. I came up with these probabilities for the Democratic nomination:

"Clinton 52%, Edwards 16%, Feingold 12%, Biden 8%, Gore 5%, Kerry 3%, the Field (Richardson, Bayh, Vilsack, Wes Clark, Schweitzer/Obama-type Draftee) 3%, Is there anything else? 1%, Kucinich 3 votes."

Well, at least I mentioned Obama--clearly understood today to be, indeed, the foretold Clinton Centrist Challenger--though at the time I didn't think Barack was going to run. As for Edwards, I knew he would be a factor, though I wasn't sure whether it would be as the centrist challenger or the leftist one.

I had the narrative for the electoral race. It took the DNC to preserve it, by sabotaging the attempts by Michigan and Florida to get more attention by bringing their primaries forward:

The basic theme of the Democratic nomination process will be winning in the early-season Four Corners (of a diamond?): IA, NH, and the recently promoted SC and NV. It seems improbable that anyone but HRC could win all four, but any candidate who doesn't win in SC but does win all the other three should be able to coast home. The SC winner would be the likeliest choice for the '3-C' role, while the first XXX leader will be identified before SC. (There could be more than one, someone coming in late and absorbing most of the delegates from an early XXX leader who may falter).

If Hillary doesn't win it early (at least 3 of 4), it should settle into the three-way race.

I spent a lot of effort on the Republican preview, looking at three '06 scenarios: a Bushite victory, Total Bushite Chaos!, and a Democratic Victory, the latter being defined as the Democrats winning control of at least one house of Congress (which I saw as having a 40% probability). For each outcome, I came up with an estimated "conditional probability"; and

after a Democratic Victory: GPR 25%, McCain 40%, anti-Bushite Right-Winger 35%".

("GPR" meant Giuliani, Pataki, or Romney, who were pretty much interchangeable, and I felt there was a niche for only one. ) The position of "anti-Bushite Right-Winger" was up for grabs--I saw Gingrich as the one most likely to snag it--and I disparaged Huckabee like the rest. Sen. Brownback I saw as a "fourth way" and possibly pivotal figure. Again, that role went to Mike.

I saw McCain's chances hinged on winning both NH and SC, but today it seems that in South Carolina he has no chance. Regardless, today it would be hard to criticize any preview except one that had any degree of certainty about it. You don't find anyone willing to stick one's neck out and say anything about the outcome at this point, except that someone's bound to win in the end.

After the double-D Democratic victory (which I gave only a 12% likelihood), I revisited the three-cornered race I saw coming forward. Not much had changed, though there was, of course, more clarity:

Update on most likely six finalists for the two three-cornered party nomination races:
1) McCain
(now more than ever with the decisive Democratic victory, Bushite defeat.)
2) Giuliani
(Romney now heir-apparent to this role if Rudy falters, as Pataki disappears)
3)Gingrich
(over Brownback as leader of right-wing holding action and eventual VP candidate. No more chance of a significant Bushite candidate )


1) Hillary Rodham Clinton (in her own interest, HRC will be advising Nancy Pelosi on a full-time basis throughout 2007)
2) Barack Obama (the Clinton Centrist Challenger of the moment)
3) John Edwards (establishing a surprising claim to be the best "XXX" candidate)

Got one right.

It would be ironic if it comes down to these three (and, for a further fancy, say, Bill Richardson) and Edwards is the only white male left standing for the Democrats, while being the one "furthest to the left". Such a combination could actually put him over the top for the nomination.

Seems unlikely.

I still see the likely scenario for the Republicans being the right-wing stalking horse handing the laurels to McCain in mid-primary season and getting the VP nomination (not insignificant, given McCain's age).

McCain-Huckabee we're talking here, though I didn't realize it. Still kind of hard to imagine, though tactically it makes a ton of sense. And that's what I'm hoping for, a ticket without Giuliani or Romney at the top. (Cheers to the Concord Monitor for their Romney "anti-endorsement"--also known as "endorsement. Not.")

Illegal Betting Advice

In July of '07 , I gave my assessment of the posted odds: (http://chinshihtang.blogspot.com/2007/07/money-where-my-blog-is-not.html#links):

If I take the odds from one of the offshore gaming sites--press@intrade.com--(I don't recommend gambling in such places, plus it's illegal (!?) for Americans to vote in this way.)--

they have (7/25): Clinton 47.2; Obama 38.0; Edwards 5.9; Gore 5.4; Others (by subtraction only) 3.5%...

They have: Giuliani 39.0%; Thompson 32%; Romney 16.7%; Mc Cain 6.0%; Others 6.3%.

My conclusions would be: Clinton, though rising, is still cheap for the nomination (until about 60%). Clinton for the Presidency, at 29%, also looks cheap up to about 35-38%. Sell Giuliani and Romney; buy Thompson and McCain.

Except for the part about Thompson (who knew? I was going by his Watergate committee performance, never watch Law and Order), my advice still looks good.

More recently, in my tactical endorsement (http://chinshihtang.blogspot.com/2007/11/democratic-prez-endorsement-pt-2.html#links), I wrote that I thought Obama would win Iowa, drawing upon Edwards-supporters forced by the rules to move toward their second choice. In the short time since then, Obama has surged to the Iowa lead in poll-driven expectations. As a consequence, neither Edwards nor Clinton should feel inclined to cut deals with Obama in Iowa.

The pundits seem to be hinting that Clinton is offering to deal with Edwards--which I see as more likely to help HRC, if it comes off. This, and the unreliability of counting on the youth vote, is making me a bit nervous about the "Obama the clear favorite" talk. I think that New Hampshire might still swing Obama's way, regardless, as the Graniteers choose free life rather than death.