The 4th candidate for Dems and Reps?

[Jacobtm]

Both Democrats and Republicans now have 3 main candidates running for the Presidency.

If you look at crowded races in the past, the eventual winner is rarely considered a frontrunner in the beginning. In 1988, Hart was the presumptive nominee, unless Mario Cuomo entered the race. Cuomo didn't enter the race, and the Dukakis campaign leaked the story that killed Hart. And even then, it was a 4 way fight between Dukakis, Gore, Jackson and Gephardt for quite some time before Dukakis was seen as the winner. In 1992, Clinton didn't emerge until very late, and killed. In '04, Dean was obviously going to win, until a negative ad battle between him and Gephardt killed him in Iowa and he killed himself.

With 3 people on each side presumed to be the only 3 candidates who'll matter, naturally other candidates will devise strategies to smear the other candidates. Generally, this suceeds in just bringing down others. And if you have 8 different campaigns running negative ads against 3 main people, naturally some of the attacks will stick, and some of these star candidates will fall and leave room for another to take their place.

Who will the 4th candidate for both parties be, when this likely happens?

I believe Richardson and Huckabee are both likely to emerge as their respective parties main "opposition" candidates.

With the Democrats, the three frontrunners will all have done little but served 4-8 years in the U.S. senate. You can expect tons of ads from Vilsack, Biden, Gravel, and Richardson pointing out the inexperience of all the main frontrunners. Beyond that, Senators have a dismal record as Presidential candidates, giving the crowd more material to harm the 3 frontrunners with.

Vilsack, Biden and Richardson all have a ton of experience, but I believe Richardson has a good combination going for him. Vilsack has been governor for a while, but is obviously very boring and can't even lead in his own state. Biden has been around forever as well, but is still a senator (can find anything to attack him with), and will likely be reminded again and again of hil plagurism. Richardson has experience in almost all aspect of government, as a Congressman, Ambassador, Energy Secretary and now Governor. He's very moderate, and publicly embraces tax cuts as a mean of stimulating economic growth. His identification with the largest and fastest growing minority in the country won't hurt either, nor the fact that he represents a very close state (which he could easily carry), and a region that is slowly becoming more and more accessible to the Democrats.

As for Huckabee, I can't see why he isn't already a frontrunner, besides the fact that he isn't campaigning as hard as Romney. Romney is obviously a phony, and his religion is possibly a more harmful handicap than anything Obama or Hillary posess. Once people begin to hear anything about what he did/said in Massachussets, he won't be able to get Conservative votes, and he might not be able to get North East Republican votes for being such a clear flip-flopper. Huckabee will probably take Romney's place. Oddly for Republicans, the other 2 frontrunners aren't very conservative. Rudy and Guliani both won't be able to get votes from hardcore conservatives as long as Brownback and Tancredo are there letting everyone know about things like Rudy's many marriages and support for gay rights, along with all McCain has done to piss off the evangelical types.

Huckabee, on the other hand, is pretty socially conservative. He's not a nutjob like Tancredo or Brownback (and Rudy and McCain will both remind everyone what nutkobs those two are), and he's been a rather effective governor. He's got a great story with losing all the weight, and he fits the Republican mold oh-so well while still managing to seem like a rational person.

Anyway, just putting my picks out there. Buy those two on tradesports and make some dough. I'm not saying they'll both win their parties' nominations, I'm just saying that they'll both take far more prominant positions as next winter comes around.

[Akno21]

In '04, Dean was obviously going to win, until a negative ad battle between him and Gephardt killed him in Iowa and he killed himself.

But Dean wasn't the favorite in January 2003. I don't really remember it very well, but if anyone had the upper hand at the beginning of the campaign, it was either Kerry, Gephardt, or Lieberman.

[Inmate Trump]

But Dean wasn't the favorite in January 2003. I don't really remember it very well, but if anyone had the upper hand at the beginning of the campaign, it was either Kerry, Gephardt, or Lieberman.

Lieberman, I think.

[Middle-aged Europe]

But Dean wasn't the favorite in January 2003. I don't really remember it very well, but if anyone had the upper hand at the beginning of the campaign, it was either Kerry, Gephardt, or Lieberman.

Lieberman, I think.

CNN/USA Today/Gallup (Jan. 10-12, 2003)
Joe Lieberman 19%
John Kerry 17%
Dick Gephardt 13%
John Edwards 12%
Bob Graham 6%
Gary Hart (*lol*) 6%
Al Sharpton 4%
Howard Dean 4%

ABC News/Washington Post (Jan. 16-20, 2003)
Joseph Lieberman 27%
Richard Gephardt 14%
John Edwards 11%
John Kerry 10%
Al Sharpton 7%
Howard Dean 3%

NBC News/Wall Street Journal (Jan. 19-21, 2003)
Hillary Clinton 39%
Joe Lieberman 13%
Richard Gephardt 10%
John Kerry 8%
John Edwards 5%
Bob Graham 4%
Howard Dean 2%
Al Sharpton 2%

The Los Angeles Times (Jan. 30-Feb. 2, 2003)
Joe Lieberman 25%
John Kerry 20%   
John Edwards 8%   
Gary Hart 8%   
Dick Gephardt 6%   
Bob Graham 6%
Al Sharpton 2% 
Howard Dean 1%

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh04dem2.htm

[Mr. Morden]

Lieberman may have been leading the polls in January 2003, but he was kind of considered the Giuliani of 2004: Most, or at least many, pundits dismissed his lead in the polls as a product of name recognition that would evaporate over time.  They thought that he probably not liberal enough to win the party's nomination.  To the extent that there was a frontrunner at all in Jan. 03, it was probably Kerry, who didn't lose that title until late summer, when Dean took the lead in the polls in both Iowa and New Hampshire.

Here's an interesting graph from the Iowa Electronic Markets, the futures markets on who was going to win the '04 Dem. nomination:

http://128.255.244.60/graphs/graph_DConv04.cfm

It only goes back to late Feb., but you can see Kerry leading Gephardt and Lieberman early on.  The gray line (ROF_NOM) is the probability that someone else, someone for whom there's not an individual contract will win.  Initially, that's everyone but Kerry, Gephardt, Lieberman, and Clinton (some people had fantasies about her jumping into the race, a la Gore '08).  But then they later split off contracts for Dean, Clark, and Edwards.

[Mr. Morden]

Oh, and to answer the question posed by the OP, I agree that the most likely "4th candidate" on the GOP side is Huckabee.  On the Dem. side, I have no idea.  If Gore were to run, he'd certainly be in that top tier.  But barring that, I don't think there's going to be a 4th candidate.  Clinton, Obama, and Edwards are going to suck up all the oxygen.  At least, that's how I see things right now.  I reserve the right to reverse myself completely as events merit. 

[Akno21]

I don't think comparing this with 2004 is valid, however, because the top 3 Democratic candidates are all very strong. I don't think any of the 2004 "top tier" would have a shot this time around.

[Bay Ridge, Bklyn! Born and Bred]

I'd have to say probably Tom Vilsack.  On paper, he seems like a strong candidate and fits the profile of past Democratic president perfectly:  a fairly successful two-term governor, a social liberal but a fiscal conservative, and not tied in any way to Iraq.

I think one possible scenario is that Iowa caucus goers will eventually "come home" in the end and nominate their own Vilsack once they find that the other candidates are empty suits.  Then he carries the momentum over to NH and Nevada.

The problem with Vilsack is that he has zero charisma.  If you watched him on the Daily Show, he was great: funny, witty, charming....but then the next week he appeared on ABC News "This Week" and he seemed uncomfortable in his skin: awkward, stiff, jowly.  I think he would be the "4th candidate" for the Dems

[DownWithTheLeft]

Dems: Tom Vilsack
At this point the Dems seem to want to rally behind Shillary, Obama, and Edwards.  Clinton comes with plently of baggage including her role in the Whitewater Scandal and the fact that a lot of people flat out won't vote for her.  Obama has a lack of experience and the handicap of being a minority.  He seems to be the Howard Dean of 2008.  Edwards is the pretty boy from the south who is seen as the moderate who can win.  But, he is still a fmr. trial lawyer (not a help) and has the stigma of being a loser in 2004.  Therefore, where do the Dems turn?  Well, Vilsack has many things going in his favor.  He is the popular, moderate, male caucasian governor of a midwest state.  And what midwest state is that?  Iowa, which we all often shapes the presidential race.

Reps: Sam Brownback
I am really torn here and I have to give honorable mention to Tom Tancredo and Newt Gingrich.  But let's not jump the gun, here's whats wrong with the Big 3.  The most obvious is the baggage of Mitt Romney being a Mormon and a flip-flopper (must be something w/MA).  His memo which he said he was more pro-gay than Ted Kennedy is not going to fly against the base which already has qualms about him.  Rudy Guilliani has a lot of problems as well.  First, he is a NYer which automatically makes a lot of people hate him, coupled with the fact that he incredibly liberal and worries the base tremendously that there influence might be cut down.  I could on and on but I will stop there.  What is John McCain's problem?  Well, he is known as a maverick and this does not sit well with the base.  He also is so close to Bush on Iraq, that while I admire this about him, many do not.

So where does that leave us?  Well, we could turn to Newt, but we all know the baggage that comes there.  Tancredo is a viable option, but if we can swallow our tongue on immigration, Brownback is much more likely to be elected.  The only candidate who could have it better than Brownback, is Huckabee who is yet to make a name for himself.  So at this moment, Sam Brownback is the 4th man, but that is subject to change.

[YRABNNRM]

Democrats: Richardson, Gore (if he chooses to run)
Republicans: Brownback, Huckabee (if he chooses to run)

[Eraserhead]

Dems: Richardson
Reps: Huckabee (maybe)

[7,052,770]

Gore and Gingrich

[Eraserhead]

Gore and Gingrich

I'm starting to doubt either will run.

[Padfoot]

Dems: Richardson
Reps: Huckabee (maybe)

[ShadowRocket]

I agree that Richardson's and Huckabee's clout as Presidential candidates will increase over time.