For Now, Kerry Leads The 'Buzz' Competition

By Charlie Cook
© National Journal Group Inc.

February 8, 2003

This column was originally featured on National Journal on February 8, 2003.

At this embryonic stage in the creation of the next Democratic presidential nominee, ranking the contenders is mostly guesswork, because there are few meaningful ways to measure who is ahead and by how much. However, by early April, the campaigns with the most to brag about financially will begin leaking estimates of how much they have raised in 2003. The ill-fated 1995-96 campaign of then-Sen. Phil Gramm, R-Texas, demolished the axiom that whoever raises the most money in the year before the first real votes are cast always goes on to win the presidential nomination. Nevertheless, fundraising ability remains the best early indicator of whether a presidential contender should be taken seriously.

Until the Federal Election Commission's financial report cards come out in April (after the leaks), the only objective measurement is polling data, which is of limited value this early in the contest. Current poll results mostly reflect pre-campaign name recognition, rather than any real progress made by a presidential campaign.

Still, these polls do accomplish one thing: They establish a baseline showing where each candidate started-nationally, in the early primary and caucus states, and among key demographic groups. For analysts gauging whether a particular candidate is gaining or losing ground, those baselines will provide useful reference points in the coming months. For example, the direction the Rev. Al Sharpton of New York moves from his baseline will indicate whether he is getting the African-American vote to coalesce behind him as the Rev. Jesse Jackson did in 1988. Or that movement could show that Sharpton's appeal is largely regional, with Southern blacks less attracted to him personally and politically.

If former Sen. Carol Moseley-Braun of Illinois enters the race, will she divide the black vote and hurt Sharpton's chances of garnering a significant number of delegates? Could she outperform Sharpton? Will Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina be effective in positioning himself as the Southern candidate in the race, or can Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut make inroads in the South as the most conservative candidate in the field?

We can answer these and similar questions at least tentatively over the next year by examining the cross-tabulations of polls.

For now, campaign forecasting remains much more subjective. The "buzz"-the development and evolution of the conventional wisdom of Democratic activists, party leaders, and political reporters about each candidate's prospects-is what matters most.

Dominating the talk these days is the candidate who seems to be attracting the most-desired strategists, operatives, fundraisers, and opinion leaders, both in the early key states and nationally. Sen. John F. Kerry of Massachusetts is leading the buzz race, even winning the tentative label of "front-runner" in a recent Time article. Correctly or not, operatives and journalists alike seem to agree that Kerry has gotten out of the blocks the fastest, lined up the most big-name talent, and put together what appears to be a solid and smooth-running campaign organization. Critics, though, are already eagerly awaiting Kerry's first expenditure report to see how quickly his high-priced operatives are burning through his cash. Observers are also watching to see whether the outsiders that Kerry has signed on can withstand the first real bump in the road, or whether old Kerry hands, based in Boston, attempt a coup against the newcomers.

If Kerry has gotten out of the blocks the quickest, Rep. Richard A. Gephardt of Missouri seems to have emerged the slowest. Few unexpected names have joined his effort, and his campaign organizational chart seems more penciled-in than most. Gephardt's lethargic start is a surprise: As the only one in the current field who has run for president before, he should be the best-organized, fastest-moving candidate. In 1988, Gephardt won the Iowa caucuses, but his campaign then ran out of money. Insiders have always assumed that Gephardt would run again. The only question was when.

Gephardt is hampered by the widespread assumption that defeat-weary Democrats are clamoring for new blood. His candidacy is not creating much excitement, even in Iowa, his make-or-break state.

Edwards was the flavor of the month at one point last summer, with many observers saying that he has more raw talent than the rest of the field combined. Since then, though, his less-than-impressive television performances, notably on NBC's Meet the Press, have cooled the enthusiasm for his campaign. And Edwards hasn't been helped by the fact that foreign-policy and national security issues-areas that aren't his strong suits-are dominating the news. Some big names that seemed to be dying to jump onto Edwards's bandwagon are now holding back. Still, the freshman senator is too articulate and attractive to dismiss as a presidential candidate.

While the Lieberman campaign is not perceived to have soared, it is also not perceived to have sputtered the way Edwards's has. Lieberman, the Democrats' 2000 vice presidential nominee, holds or shares the lead in most national polls. Yet it is not clear which early-2004 state offers his best chance to actually win and establish the early momentum-"the Big Mo," in the vernacular of President George H.W. Bush-that is so important. Running ahead in early polls may prove to be of little value to Lieberman if a rival does well enough in both Iowa and New Hampshire to capture most of the momentum heading into the two February 3 primaries and beyond.

Sen. Bob Graham of Florida had seemed to be on the verge of joining the race before a routine medical exam revealed that he needed heart surgery and forced him to delay his final decision until next month. It's difficult to see where Graham could make inroads outside of Florida, but he is a proven fundraiser from a key state known for exporting political money. That means, at least early on, that Graham could likely raise rather substantial amounts of money and potentially cut off Florida contributions that rivals, most notably Lieberman, might have been counting on.

If there's a candidate who has really exceeded expectations, it is former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean. When Dean became the first Democrat to announce his intention to run for president, observers viewed him as a novelty. Few believed that the chief executive of a state with only one-fourth the population of Bill Clinton's Arkansas could raise enough money to become viable. Although Dean's ability to raise money and move up in the polls is still doubtful, his early performances on the campaign trail have earned him very favorable notices. Indeed, those attending the recent NARAL Pro-Choice America Dinner in Washington say that Dean and Sharpton, the two nonlegislators in the field, brought down the house with far more stirring and interesting speeches than did Edwards, Gephardt, Kerry, and Lieberman.

Sharpton, like Jackson before him, is judged not so much by traditional measurements of fundraising or polls as by how much noise he makes in the race and how much his candidacy affects candidates whom the conventional wisdom deems actual contenders for the nomination. A Sharpton campaign would need less money, would be less dependent upon paid advertising, expensive staff, and consultants, and would be more of a guerrilla-warfare operation than a conventional campaign. But there is little evidence to suggest that Sharpton will be able to expand his support beyond the black community enough to have a realistic chance of winning.

Besides Graham and Moseley-Braun, the other possible late entries are former Sen. Gary Hart of Colorado and former NATO Cmdr. Wesley Clark of Arkansas. Hart is hoping to restart the presidential campaign he aborted in 1987 after his extramarital affair was exposed. Though Gen. Clark has never declared that he is a Democrat, he has sounded out some in the party about a possible run for the White House, obviously in hopes that the post-9/11 focus on foreign policy and national security would give him a real chance of winning the presidential or vice presidential nomination.

Overall, the conventional wisdom about the Democratic contest at this stage is as follows: Three candidates-Gephardt, Kerry, and Edwards-have states they must win if they are to stay in the race. Gephardt, who won his neighboring state of Iowa in 1988, is considered the front-runner there, although not even his backers think he is close to having the contest wrapped up. Should Gephardt lose the January 19 Iowa caucuses, his candidacy would be virtually doomed. Indeed, he probably needs to win Iowa with some points to spare for it to be considered a real victory, and he would have to win the state by a lot to get the boost that comes from exceeding expectations.

The next must-win contest is for Kerry in New Hampshire, where the primary is tentatively slated for January 27. Kerry, who hails from neighboring Massachusetts, is in the same position in New Hampshire as Gephardt in Iowa: He must win-and needs to win convincingly. Losing New Hampshire would be devastating for Kerry. Meanwhile, whoever wins the Iowa caucuses will be under pressure in New Hampshire to demonstrate continuing momentum.

After New Hampshire, the next contests appear likely to be on February 3 in South Carolina and Missouri. As with Gephardt in Iowa and Kerry in New Hampshire, the pressure would be on Edwards to win next door in the Palmetto State. Early evidence suggests that Edwards is far from having a lock on South Carolina. And if Graham and Clark choose to run, each will also need to establish himself as the candidate most likely to win the later Southern primaries. For Sharpton and Moseley-Braun, a key question would be whether they intended to try to win South Carolina-the first nominating state with a significant black population-despite the NAACP call for an economic boycott of the state.

Any candidate who has not come in first or second in Iowa or New Hampshire could have major problems by the South Carolina and Missouri primaries, when momentum starts becoming crucial. Missouri is the first state in the process that is reasonably representative of the country. It can be considered tilted toward Gephardt, as long as he has won Iowa and remains viable. If not, Missouri becomes the first big battleground, with a large number of delegates up for grabs. If Gephardt is still a major contender, his rivals will be cherry-picking around the state for pockets of delegates, because Democratic rules provide for proportional representation in the allocation of delegates.

Lieberman holds a slight lead in national polls, but he has no single "make-or-break" state. Nevertheless, he must come in first or second in one of the first four contests to remain viable. Similarly, Dean must do surprisingly well in at least one of them if he is to raise enough money to stay in the hunt. New Hampshire, his next-door state, represents Dean's best chance for a breakthrough. Sharpton would have to do very well with the black vote in South Carolina to show that he isn't a merely a New York candidate.

As the pre-season jockeying continues, keeping an eye on where each candidate started will be one of the best ways to determine who's really going to be in the race.