US presidential dynasties?

April 27, 2005 1:50 PM

Help an ingnorant canuck out, how likely is Jeb '08 or Hillary '08?

I see these supposedly up and comers tossed around in American politics a lot and I was wondering if there is any chance of either of these two winning their party nominations?

posted by Mitheral to law & government (36 comments total)

It's too early to tell.
posted by angry modem at 2:00 PM on April 27, 2005

Condi v. Hillary
posted by caddis at 2:17 PM on April 27, 2005

There's already a blog. Dunno how knowledgeable they are, but they have Hilary at #1 in their ranking of the 40 most likely Democratic nominees. Jeb is not ranked in their 40 most likely Republican nominees, since he's said he won't run, but they comment he'd be in the top 10 if he were.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 2:20 PM on April 27, 2005

but they comment he'd be in the top 10 if he were.

if he were what? running? wouldn't he by-definition be a candidate if he were running?
posted by foraneagle2 at 2:40 PM on April 27, 2005

oh most likely to be elected, i should have clicked the link first
posted by foraneagle2 at 2:41 PM on April 27, 2005

Given the fact that Republicans are riding a wave of "moral values", given that Hillary has never had a good national approval rating (compared to Laura Bush's 80% approval right now), I'd bet my life that Jeb will not face Hillary.

And since, as DevilsAdvocate points out, Jeb has opted out of running, that lessens the chance dramatically. I think it's a Democratic pipe dream to see a female Democrat as President. I also don't think that Condi will run (country is still very socially regressive).

My bet: Frist (if he survives these next few years) vs. an emerging Democratic figure that we don't know about yet. Obama is too young; Dean is crazy; Gore has been forgotten; Pelosi is nuts; though I'd like to see Delaware senator Joe Biden give it a whirl.
posted by SeizeTheDay at 2:50 PM on April 27, 2005

Honestly, what angry modem said. Traditionally, there's virtually no real concept of candidacy until about a year before the actual primaries. In 1990 no one had a damn clue who Bill Clinton was and in 1997 people didn't even know George Bush had a son let alone one who was Governor of Texas.

Virtually every President came from executive as opposed to legislative experience- only 2 sitting senators ever won. Almost every President since FDR has been a Southerner. Only two or three sitting Vice Presidents have ever become President. With a few exceptions, the taller candidate wins. And so on and so on, into rapidly-diminishing statistics of little-to-no-relevance.

The people who shout the loudest about possible Hillary Clinton or Condoleeza Rice candidacies are usually those who have the least knowledge about the political process. Until about February-March 2007, every single poll for candidate picks are going to be useless, because they're based on name recognition and most people don't feel like choosing the "I don't know anything about this" option, if even offered. John McCain is leading polls because people don't have a clue who Haley Barbour is, despite the fact that the structure of the RNC and the layout of regional caucuses makes him a hundred times more likely to be nominated.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 2:50 PM on April 27, 2005

I don't really follow this stuff because it annoys the hell out of me, but a while back some columnists (Slate? Salon?) were rah-rahing about John Edwards as someone who could excite grassroots "moral" sentiment on the Dem side. Is he still viable for 08?
posted by matildaben at 3:01 PM on April 27, 2005

Forget my opinion, or the opinion of other odds-makers.

Consider the opinions of two who know a lot more than we do. Those two, of course, are Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush.

Hillary's been coming out with "triangulating" speeches about finding "common ground" between the pro-choice and anti-abortion camps, and has mostly kept out of more contentious but important issues like vote integrity and the President's nominations of incompetents and torturers.

Jeb fought hard for the "Culture of Life" and to keep Terry Schiavo's body "alive" even going so far as to consider using state cops to seize her in violation of a judge's ruling, and has already gone to Rome to greet the new Pope.

This indicates that both of them are angling for their parties' nominations.
posted by orthogonality at 3:06 PM on April 27, 2005

I think they are both equally unlikely.
posted by mischief at 3:08 PM on April 27, 2005

What XQUZY... said.

The Democrats are reeling from last year's loss: if you take as given the fact that the country will be in absolutely terrible, dire straights after the Bush years are up, the Democrats would kinda like to win one when it's such a "sure bet." Hopefully there will be a gi-normous schism in the GOP between the Neo-Cons and the moderates; if the Dems selection is middle-of-the-road enough, they'll win. In such a situation, it would be political suicide for the entire party to put Hillary on the ticket.

Small anecdote for you: when I lived in Nebraska just last year, I decided to go check out a rodeo in the middle of the state (/nowhere). They had a rodeo clown telling Hillary Clinton jokes to get easy laughs out of the crowd. I kept thinking... "Jesus, that was five years ago and you still haven't gotten over it?" And by "it" I mean, "strong, independent, smart woman." Granted, Nebraska is in the center of the Red Zone, but she really got under a lot of people's skin.

Jeb, on the other hand... who knows? I'm sure a lot of people would like to see a Bush dynasty (what we used to call Empire in the old Roman days), and Florida is a big state (third in population). There are so many other "moderate" options that I think it would be unlikely. Expect to see Mitt Romney, though. Republicans would love (and I mean, hard, nasty, love) to see a Republican Massachusetts governor win the presidency, just to stick it to all the pro-gay-rights folks in New England.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 3:11 PM on April 27, 2005

Almost every President since FDR has been a Southerner

Not southerners: Truman, Kennedy, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush I (unless you count the hotel room, but that would be silly). Southerners: Eisenhower, Johnson, Carter, Clinton, Bush II.

It's far too early to tell, but:

Clinton would be a terrible pick, and I think most Democrats recognize that. She's alienating and shrill and prickly and hard to like, and she'll bring out the right-wing loons in droves to vote against her plan to have the UN force all Christians to have abortions while being sodomized by Frenchmen, or similar nonsense.

On the Democratic side, I'd look at the pool of governors who are next up for re-election in 2006 -- in 2008 they won't have to lose their current job (assuming they're re-elected then), so they're more likely to run. This includes Bill Richardson from NM who's had some national attention. It also includes Jennifer Granholm of Michigan, and I will go way out on a limb and state that she will not run in 2008.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 3:19 PM on April 27, 2005

This is a fun question to speculate on. On the Republican side, DevilsAdvocate is right, Jeb has repeatedly said he wouldn't run. Even if he changes his mind, I think some voters would be wary of electing a third Bush family member as President.

The way I see it, John McCain is the presumptive Republican frontrunner. He has broad appeal across a wide band of the US political spectrum, conservatives to centrists to Reagan Democrats, which is more than enough to get him elected. His two biggest problems are 1) his age and 2) his lack of appeal to religious conservatives. Other likely primary candidates will be Rudolph Guiliani, Senators Bill Frist and Rick Santorum, and Governors Bill Owens and Mitt Romney.

Each of these, in order, has serious weaknesses. Guliani is pro-choice and has even voiced support for gay marriage/civil unions. This is the kiss of death to cultural conservatives. Bill Frist has been taking a serious beating as of late over his bumbling in the Senate. If he can't pull off defeating the Democratic filibuster, he's done. Rick Santorum must survive his 2006 Senate campaign against Robert Casey, and as of right now, he's way behind. Bill Owens lost control of the Colorado legislature last election, and this may hurt his prominence in conservative circles. Mitt Romney is governor of Massachusetts, and even though he's done everything in his power to stop gay marriage there, he has always failed. This isn't impressive to conservatives.

On the Democratic side, everyone likes to talk Hillary, but I'm not as convinced as other people. We've already seen one front-running candidate sunk by "un-electable" rhetoric (Howard Dean), and expect such talk to only increase as polls come out showing how high Mrs. Clinton's "dislike" numbers are (the percentage of voters that have a visceral dislike for the woman herself, not her policies). This number used to be very high, but there is some anecdotal evidence that people are warming up to her.

As for other candidates, I think the early contenders are: John Kerry (again), Al Gore (again), Wesley Clark, John Edwards, and Governors Mark Warner and Brian Schweitzer. I think the downside to John Kerry is pretty obvious: he had his chance. This is also true for Al Gore, but I think people would feel slightly more sympathetic, mainly because Gore won more votes than Bush last time around, and the idea that Bush stole his first election has stuck around. A lot of people felt that Wesley Clarck could have been a much more serious contender in 2004 had he started his campaign earlier. He's been very politically active over the last year so it looks like he'll run again. His too biggest negatives: 1) he screwed up the first time and 2) he's never held political office. John Edwards is still highly popular, but since he had to give up his Senate seat, he's fallen out of the public eye. Mark Warner and Brian Schweitzer are both popular democratic governors from conservative states, Virginia and Montana respectively. Warner is term-limited out of office in 2006, so he'll be looking for another job. Schweitzer is so popular he's been able to gain control of both houses of the state congress, all in a state that went for Bush by twenty points.

Again, everything anyone says is mere conjecture, but I think the chances of Jeb '08 are slim to none. As for Hillary, I think she'll make a run for it, but I'm not convinced that she'll be able to overcome her considerable negative poll numbers. And, in my opinion, if McCain comes out on top in the Republican primary, it's all over for the Dems, no matter who they nominate.
posted by thewittyname at 3:20 PM on April 27, 2005

One last thing: Jennifer Granholm of Michigan is ineligable to run for the President, because, like Arnold, she was born outside the country (in her case, Vancouver).

So close to the border, and yet so very far away.
posted by thewittyname at 3:26 PM on April 27, 2005

Hillary's appeal or lack thereof is irrelevant. She's a woman and there's a significant percentage of the population who won't vote for a female candidate. A party riding high on success might stick their neck out on something like that but you can be sure the Dems won't.

That's not to say she won't go gunning for it but her chance of getting it is effectively zero.

The more interesting question is, if she really is angling for a run, is she that clueless or is she calculating on the notable percentage she'd steal from another candidate and simply banking on gathering up that political capital (an endorsement) to trade for something else?
posted by phearlez at 3:33 PM on April 27, 2005

I'm with the tin foil hat folks, I really think Cheney will resign "for health reasons" after the 2006 elections, leaving Bush to appoint his replacement. Whoever it is, they become the Republican front runner. This is also the only way a "moderate" Republican could get nominated, given the primary system.

Hillary seems to have way too many negatives, and the right wing attack dogs have been salivating for her to run.
posted by Marky at 3:36 PM on April 27, 2005

I agree with mischief -- they are both equally unlikely.


On the Democratic side, everyone likes to talk Hillary

Actually, in my perception, that's everybody on the Republican side. They're the only people I ever hear bringing up Hillary. And as for Condi? Please -- total agreement with Thomas P.M. Barnett, who says no way because a) she's single, b) she's black and c) she's a she.
posted by Rash at 3:43 PM on April 27, 2005

Jennifer Granholm of Michigan is ineligable to run for the President, because, like Arnold, she was born outside the country

That being why I'm so confident she won't run!

(actually, I suppose she can *run* if she wants, she just can't take office. and it's being born a foreigner, not being born outside the US, that's relevant)
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 3:58 PM on April 27, 2005

My suspicion is that Jeb could have the nomination for the asking.

I think Hilary is about the worst choice the Democrats could make -- a candidate the Right has a 16 year head start at demonizing.

But the Democrats are also pretty darn good at making really bad choices, so I wouldn't rule it out.

Ditto XQUZYPHYR -- the candidates are often obscure and seem unlikely in advance.
posted by Zed_Lopez at 4:20 PM on April 27, 2005

One last thing: Jennifer Granholm of Michigan is ineligable to run for the President, because, like Arnold, she was born outside the country (in her case, Vancouver).

Just 'cause this is a pet peeve of mine: being born outside the country isn't enough to disqualify you from being president. You just have to be a "natural born citizen", which means that if you're born outside of the U.S. to parents who are citizens (like, say, John McCain), you're still eligible to become president. Granholm is a naturalized citizen, though, so she still can't sit in the Oval Office.
posted by Johnny Assay at 4:33 PM on April 27, 2005

I'd say Frist vs ???
Jebby of course looks quite good as well.
If I were a Democrat I'd be gunning for Bredesen. but I'm sure that Hillary -- whose negatives, as others said already, are off-the-charts high, higher-than-Dukakis' high -- wants to run at this point, and she'll probably raise more than a few bucks from people who should know better, imo. so it's going to be interesting to watch.
posted by matteo at 5:00 PM on April 27, 2005

Instead of listening to us, why not see what the betting markets say? At the time I wrote, Jeb isn't on the Map, and Hillary has a 45% chance of taking the Democratic nomination.
posted by trharlan at 5:33 PM on April 27, 2005

And I would encourage XQUZYPHYR to put his money where his mouth is. Risk $55 to win $45-- good odds, if you're betting against "those who have the least knowledge about the political process."
posted by trharlan at 5:39 PM on April 27, 2005

Johnny Assay, you're right: this site, for instance, says "A child born of U.S. citizens anywhere in the world is considered a natural born U.S. citizen and is eligible." I did not know that. Thanks for educating me.

As for the question, Hillary has been cleverly working the public -- there seems to be less hostility, in New York at least -- but I do think it would be too great a risk for the risk-averse Dems to nominate her. (About the only politician of either party I can listen to without nausea is Obama, but he's a ways off, and will probably succumb to corruption, apathy, or a small-plane crash.)
posted by languagehat at 5:57 PM on April 27, 2005

Obama will become the first black president.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 6:22 PM on April 27, 2005

The chances of Hillary Clinton getting the Democratic primary are probably the same as Rick Santorum's chances of getting the Republican primary. Not good, but if it happens, we're probably fucked.

Jeb? Likely. Sure, he can say he won't run, but that's three years away. If his brother's poll numbers are high in mid-late '07, he'd be a fool not to.

McCain has some dirty laundry, he folded like a chair to Bush, many moderates are disenchanted, and simply enough, he's getting old.

So yeah, there's still plenty of speculation until we find the newest darling children of the political machines.
posted by Saydur at 6:47 PM on April 27, 2005

Thanks all, I think this has clarified it a lot. I was flabbergasted when Bush II got the nomination. It seemed so weird that with 300+ million citizens the best guy for the job was the son of the former office holder. It seemed both totally unrealistic and yet possible at the same time that the next candidate would be the present guy's brother.

At the same time I was surprise Hillary made senator. I'm guessing it's all about the connections.
posted by Mitheral at 6:55 PM on April 27, 2005

Obama, if they've any sense.

(Interesting, unlikely, race: Obama vs. Condi.)
posted by Count Ziggurat at 7:23 PM on April 27, 2005

Expect to see Mitt Romney, though.

This seems somewhat unlikely mainly because Romney is Mormon. This wasn't a factor in MA for some reason (in fact, I think most people don't even know this), but I find it hard to believe that it wouldn't matter in a presidential race. Regardless of whether the views are justified, I don't have the impression that many people have an entirely positive and enthusiastic view of the Mormon church, to the extent that they have views.
posted by advil at 8:36 PM on April 27, 2005

The CW I've heard is that - as of right now, and a month is a lifetime in politics, let alone three years - Hillary is the one to beat for the Dem nomination, given her name recognition, her legions of loyalists and her fundraising advantage. There is little question she plans to go for it. That said, most people assume she can't win and many Dems are frantically looking for someone who could take her out. Edwards is already quietly running, spending lots of time in Iowa and New Hampshire and on Wall Street. No one else seems strong right now. Kerry will probably go but he's washed up.

On the GOP side, the CW is that Jeb will make a run in '12, the dynasty thing working too much against him in '08. Frist appears to be the likeliest front runner now. McCain is delusional if he thinks he can win the nom, Rudy the same. Condi's ruled it out and can't make a stump speech.

All of this will look fantastically quaint in a year.
posted by CunningLinguist at 9:26 PM on April 27, 2005

Depending on how the 2006 elections turn out, Jeb may make a run in 2008.

Jeb's chances will depend on whether the Christian morality police can keep people interested in legislating the persecution of gays and Muslims over the next two years.
posted by AlexReynolds at 9:36 PM on April 27, 2005

Pssst. Pssst. Mark Warner. If anyone on MeFi can pull any strings, give Mark Warner the nomination. He looks kind of like Warren Beatty and he's a moderate from the South.
posted by StopMakingSense at 2:08 AM on April 28, 2005

How about Evan Bayh for the Democrats -- young, has a legacy and won re-election in a red state by a significant margin...
posted by AJaffe at 10:18 AM on April 28, 2005

I'd say that the Republicans could do well with Colin Powell. He has appeal both to Republicans as a conservative, and do Democrats as a moderate. I would expect the Democrat Party to fire both barrels at him, in spite of the support he may garner from party memebers.

On the Democrat side, I don't see any single person with a good likelyhood. Hilary is campaigning already, though she has done everything she can to deny it. Those with real experience are shunned by the party: Gephardt, Kennedy. Obama is the only one I see with any potential, but he's valuable to the party where he is.

Much hay is made over exposing infighting in the Republican party, but I see that as healthy growth. There seems to me to be true infighting in the Democrat party, but the only substantiation I can offer on this is that as a party they are loosing ground. I suppose there are other signs of weakness too, such as Rev. Jackson rallying to the defence of Terri Shaivo, and Hillary moderating her stand for abortion resulting in anger from her supporters.
posted by kc0dxh at 10:34 AM on April 28, 2005

Colin Powell would've been a contender up until he lost all credibility with his WMD presentation to the United Nations.

Hillary is divisive, but Bush was too in 2004, and he won.

Howver, I think it's more likely that the first woman president (and the first black president) will be a Republican, because they'd me more likely to get crossover votes than a Democratic candidate would.
posted by kirkaracha at 1:27 PM on April 28, 2005

Obama will become the first black president.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 6:22 PM PST on April 27 [!]

Not if Will Smith beats him to it. God knows if Arnold and The Body can make the transistion to politics then the (possibly) smoothest, most likeable man in the world can. Mark my words.: The Fresh Prince will become the Fresh Prez. Has a nice ring to it.
posted by Sinner at 3:10 PM on April 28, 2005