The Role of the Front-Runner: An Advantageous Position with Strings Attached

This past week, just three months before the first presidential primary elections in Iowa and New Hampshire, the ABC News-Washington Post national candidate ratings poll was released. This poll is unique in that it receives significant media coverage and has been used as evidence in establishing each party’s “front-runner candidate,” a seemingly enviable position. Senator Hillary Clinton was the front-running Democrat with her ratings jumping to 53 percent, 33 points ahead of her closest competitor, Senator Barack Obama. On the Republican side, Rudy Giuliani became the front-runner with a 34 percent lead over other Republican candidates (see the chart on the right for the top four presidential candidates' ratings in each party). Being the front-runner poses an interesting study: it assures considerable exposure and may lead to a future victory, but the strings attached can potentially threaten even the most successful campaigns.

How do Giuliani and Clinton compare? First, among their respective parties, each has done the best job of persuading voters of their “electability”; this means that voters believe these candidates offer the best chance of winning the White House in 2008. On the Democratic side, 61 percent of those polled believe Clinton will be the strongest Democratic leader, and 50 percent say she best reflects the values of the Democratic Party. These ratings are not as significant for Giuliani; only 23 percent of Republican voters believe that he best reflects the party’s values. Second, a different (and perhaps more telling) comparison involves each candidate’s fundraising report. Mary Jacoby of the Wall Street Journal claims that “the ability to raise lots of cash is one traditional measure of a candidate’s strength,” and a look at both candidates’ numbers seems to prove this. Indeed, both Giuliani and Clinton are the leaders in raising money for their campaigns in the months July through September. Clinton, however, has a big edge here: she has raised over $27 million which, as Politico reports, is a big increase from even the 2000 election campaign where “Sen. John F. Kerry raised a total of $17 million over nine months at the same point in 2003.” Giuliani, in comparison, is just above the $11 million mark. This gap gives the Democrats a significant financial advantage and is probably one reason why Clinton is doing better than Giuliani in opinion polls.

With their “front-runner” status, Giuliani and Clinton now face very different challenges than the other presidential candidates. First off, they have the burden of being constantly in the spotlight as a target for criticism. John Edwards and Barack Obama, for example, have repeatedly condemned Clinton’s views on the Iraq war and health care reform, whereas Giuliani has been increasingly riled by other Republican candidates for his socially liberal views. This comes as a result of the trailing candidates’ need to differentiate themselves from the front-runners in each party, especially in key states like Iowa and New Hampshire, where generating greater voter support and winning in the “make it or break it” primaries are crucial in the race for a party nomination.

This role is especially noteworthy for Clinton because as the established front-runner of the party that is collectively ahead in polls, she has become a major target of Republican slings and arrows. In a recent article on Politico.com, journalist Mike Allen observed that “the leading Republicans are running as if Clinton were their opponent,” invoking her in hopes of gaining Republican support. One strategy, used by Mitt Romney, is to mock her in a stand-up comedic manner: at a recent campaign event Romney began with, “Did you hear what Hillary Clinton said about the economy, by the way?” and concluded with the punch line, “So for her, it’s out with Adam Smith and in with Karl Marx!” Although light-hearted in nature, Romney’s approach illustrates a broader marketing drive that has been employed by other GOP candidates this season as well: he is advocating the GOP in its entirety as well as attempting to distinguish himself from other Republican contenders. This may be a successful—and necessary—tactic for a party that is currently behind in ratings and heavily criticized by both the media and general public. By focusing on Clinton, Republican candidates seeking to emphasize their own “electability factor” are making the case “that they are not afraid to take on Clinton,” or any Democrat, as an opponent.

This is especially necessary for Giuliani since improving his “electability factor” is just one of the struggles he faces as the GOP’s front-runner. Having to speak on behalf of his party, Giuliani has had to explain the Republican candidates’ inability to compete with the Democrats in terms of financing and popularity. In an interview with Politico.com, he admitted that the Democrats are a concern of his and that the Republican Party will have to increase fundraising efforts in the future. As far as his own campaign is concerned, he said, “It’s my intention not to attack any other Republicans….The whole focus of my campaign is ‘I’m going to run against a Democrat.’”

Yet, for the front-runners, these seemingly difficult tasks may be trivial compared to the potential benefits that come hand in hand with their new-found status. Every candidate since 1980 who has been ahead in the previous year’s polls has gone on to win his party’s nomination. This may prove to be just another misleading statistic, but it is nonetheless a position every candidate would like to find himself (or herself) in. With the media already setting up a Giuliani-Clinton dynamic, the possibility of their nominations seems almost inevitable. On the other hand, the old adage “a day is a lifetime in politics” should not be forgotten—the Conventions are more than a few lifetimes away.