Despite the fact that election forecasting fifteen months in advance is completely reckless, it’s time for markets to begin pricing political alpha to whatever extent America’s 2008 election can be predicted.
While all the talk of a Republican meltdown in 2008 is somewhat overheated – these things always tighten to, at worst, 53-46 barring a major geopolitical event – a Democratic landslide is not outside the realm of possibility, particularly if current Democratic primary trends accelerate Barack Obama to the Democratic nomination. Barack Obama is the Democratic frontrunner, for several reasons beyond superficial buzz and the general appeal of Obama’s “hope-mongering” liberal optimism.
At this point in the 2004 cycle, Joe Lieberman still led most national polls. Richard Gephardt, then the Democrats’ House Minority Leader, was a few points behind. (It goes to show you how much polls matter at this point in the cycle.)
However, that’s a far cry from “the only poll that matters is the one on election day,” and polls do contain lots of useful information. Generally, candidates’ disapproval ratings (“negatives”) do not go down, beyond very short-term or existential (9/11) events. Much as a bad first impression is the only one that matters, once a voter decides to dislike a politician, the voter very rarely goes back. Hillary Clinton’s negatives are about ten points higher than those of her rivals, who are almost as well known; depending on which opinion poll you use, between 46 and 52 percent of voters “disapprove” / “will not consider voting for” Hillary Clinton, even in today’s environment, which is extremely favorable for the Democratic Party. Despite pundits’ daily pronouncements that Hillary is running away with the nomination, those numbers alone are lethal to the Clinton campaign. Considering how perceptions of Hillary have hardened over fifteen years, it’s highly doubtful that she can change those numbers in any meaningful way.
Secondly, many still dismiss Obama as “the buzz candidate,” but his campaign has accumulated 250,000 donors over the past six months – probably at least double Hillary’s. He will crush Hillary Clinton in second-quarter primary fundraising, as he did in the first quarter. As The Atlantic’s Marc Ambinder said, the sheer size (not to mention dollar volume) of Obama’s movement “gives one reason to pause and review the physics of this race.”
Thirdly, surprisingly large segments of the Democratic Party have little love for Bill Clinton (who was the father of NAFTA and godfather of welfare reform) and nothing but loathing for Hillary, who shares complicity in all of Bill’s apostasies while lacking his charm.
The Republican Party is in a pretty grim state, even without facing a much stronger general-election opponent. The geography of the 2008 Senate battlefield means that the Republicans will probably lose more Senate seats; the House of Representatives is less certain, but the Republicans almost certainly will not recapture the House in 2008. Thus, many longtime Republican power players have switched sides to either the Clinton or Obama camps (e.g., Morgan Stanley’s John Mack). The Republican nomination process is in disarray. All major general election candidates (Fred Thompson, Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, and – arguably – John McCain) face significant drawbacks in terms of energizing despondent Republican voters. McCain, who could have been a strong general election candidate, committed political suicide by supporting the extremely unpopular “Bush-Kennedy” immigration bill.
Investors should begin pondering the financial meaning of an Obama presidency, with a Democratic Congress. Judging on speeches Obama has given to the relevant interest groups, Obama would not be mercifully disposed to the plight of the American auto industry. The insurance industry, judging by its donors’ preference for Hillary, sees Obama as somewhat to Hillary’s left on the morass of health-care issues. Pharmaceutical companies will be in for rougher treatment regardless of which Democrat (probably) assumes the Presidency.
It’s too early to judge effects on specific industries, but as candidates lay out more specific policy proposals and the election draws closer, investors should keep an eye on the polls as well as the markets.
Did you like this article?
Submitted By 
's
Obama is the best choice for
Obama is the best choice for Presidency
However, Firstly I would like to mention, for the idiots that suggest Obama will be an incapable and meager President because of his Kenyan background, is simply a simple minded idiot. If this is what Kenya produces, may we all have a Kenyan background.
In my opinion both candidates Hilary and Obama will do a significant job at being president, more importantly America has now two candidates sincerely dedicated to definite change, which means no matter which of the two becomes president, The future of this country will be looking upright, since there differences are slim.
However, only one candidate has been capable to inspire value and patriotism to young America, who in return is the key to future prosperity.
In regards to experience between the two, it is inevitable that Hilary due to her almost 8 years in the white house, made many friends and received greater opportunity to interact and be apart of many institutions, organizations etc, However, what have that ever done for America? How many great presidents has entered the White house not having the forehand experience in which Hilary so conveniently had fallen into her lap.
When I think of the greatest Presidents I have been privileged to witness in my young age, I think of Kennedy and Clinton, and what made them so special was not there experience but their ability to transform the hearts, values, norms, hopes and faith in the American people and people all over the world.
Most essential when I think of these past president’s similarities and abilities to make America the world leader in the past, I associate them with Obama. I associate Obama with Americas past greatest leaders. However, it is not to imply that Obama lacks in experience because to assume that would be inaccurate.
Obama in his self is an American dream come true, not only to Americans, white, black, Hispanic or Chinese, but to all ethnic backgrounds throughout the world. Infact it is his multicultural ethnic background that represents true America. This will be a President that all America will be able to associate themselves with.
It is vital to restore a president where all Americans can associate themselves, although Hilary would be a good president, her incapacity to do that will not make her a great President.
It is important for the American people to know that they can rest assure both candidates has their interest in heart and will produce real change in the white house. But only one has the ability to ignition what is called the American ideals back into all America, the legal and illegal, the rich and the poor, black, white, Hispanic and chine’s, the young and the previous , and that President is and only Barack Obama, Americas new face of Leadership!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
yours Truly Asha Roosberg
Obama would be the worst
Obama would be the worst choice for Democrats in the US 2008 presidential election. He is untried and untested and his background inadequacies and descent from Kenya is just NOT what the world needs now. We must get real.
Hillary Clinton is the best choice. A SINCERE person and true winner in anybody's book. Just do not get complacent thinking it does not matter and remember that women of her calibre are very capable. Just look and consider what Margaret Thatcher did for the UK in its time of need. The USA NEEDS Hillary Clinton. Particularly so after Mr George Bush's disasterous tenure of office. Hillary is the one with balls and can make it happen; please remember that when considering who to vote for.
Thank God its still 2007
So where are the real potential winners already?
Sen. Fred Thompson, Gen. Wesley Clark (Ret'd) and Al Gore? You know the guys whose popularity reaches far beyond the primary voters, but whom are too honest for and will not be chosen by the impractical primary voters.
Asides from those three I can't see anybody else winning the presidency in 2008 rather I see Americans coming out to vote against the worst of the eventual Democratic and Republican nominees. It would kinda be like a vote between Barry Goldwater of 1964 and Eugene McCarthy of 1972, not in that the 18 declared candidates are all that extreme one way or another, but that no one really wants any of them to be president.
Perhaps the public is looking for a "Monica free" Bill Clinton or a Pre-2002 Colin Powell. In any event folks aren't really excited safe those who are working for one of the campaigns and even then you're likely dealing a close friend or family member of the candidate, a detatched from reality idealist or perhaps a wingnut (right or left).
No if there's anytime that Independents like Bloomberg and Lieberman have a shot its now. Hell they might even be able to top Ross Perot's 1992 performance. BTW, they're Jewish and therein lies their obstacle. Will they, even if they team up with Lieberman's experience and Bloomberg's money be able to make a dent or are old prejudices still as solid as cast iron.
Eitherway, if someone new doesn't jump in and take this race away within the next few months, I'm predicting 50% turnout, maybe less in November 2008.