Kos ranks the Dem field at this point

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/6/1/114827/8152


==by kos
Fri Jun 01, 2007 at 09:47:33 AM PDT

Last cattle call's rankings: 1) Hillary, 2) Barack, 3) John, 4) Bill, and then everyone else.


THE TOP TIER

1. Hillary Clinton

You gotta give the Clinton team credit for bamboozling the public on her Iraq stance. While clearly stating that she would not end the US involvement in the war, she portrays herself as an anti-war crusader. And so far, her opponents have let her get away with it.

My operating theory on how Obama (or Edwards) overtakes Hillary is that her support is maxed out, and people will start deserting her as they become aware of the alternatives. Well, so long as that doesn't happen, Hillary gets that "up" arrow, and it hasn't happened since the last cattle call. She's actually increased her national support in most polls, and leads the poll aggregates for every early state except for Iowa. I still don't believe that will be the state of the race come January 2008, but if the election were held today, Clinton would win easily and win big.

2. John Edwards

How does John Edwards move up a spot in the rankings yet get a down arrow? That's more a reflection on Obama than Edwards, who is still trying to weather fallout from his infamous haircut.

Edwards is second for one reason -- he leads Iowa and is tied with Obama in New Hampshire in the early polling aggregates. If the elections started today, that would probably be enough to boost him over Obama. HIs problem, however, is that there's no breathing room between Iowa and New Hampshire, and National Primary Day. And the reality is that Hillary would romp that day with states like California, New York, and New Jersey currently polling strongly for her.

Of the top three, Edwards is currently the strongest anti-war voice, unafraid to take a strong stance against the Iraq Capitulation Bill (unlike Clinton and Obama, who were afraid to state an opinion on it until after the vote).

3. Barack Obama

Stalled in the polls, Obama's operation appears to be in "build" mode. That's not a bad place to be. He drew another one of his trademark huge crowds in Reno with 3,500 showing up at a rally. And while he may not be currently registering in Nevada polls (an early caucus state), the campaign claims 5,000 volunteers in the state. Those are numbers that can help build a long-term infrastructure. And Nevada isn't alone.

So while current numbers and trends suggest Obama would fall by the wayside if the election started today, fact is that it doesn't.

Like Clinton, Obama passed up a great opportunity to lead the charge against the Iraq supplemental, only deciding to vote against it at the last minute. Unlike Clinton, Obama was probably against it from the beginning. So why the caution? Why the hesitation? Why not demonstrate some leadership? Was he waiting for Axelrod's poll to come back from the field? There are things we expect from the risk-averse Clintons. But it'd be nice if Obama didn't learn from their bad habits.

But Obama is staking out clear ground in the "change" category, and that's probably the best place to be heading into 2008.


THE SECOND TIER

4. Bill Richardson

Damn, Richardson's star has nearly collapsed these past six weeks. His embrace of Roe dissenter Justice White because he was a football player, and his subsequent ignorance as to the decision (he thought it took place in the 80s) was embarrassing. His use of right-wing talking points to describe Democrats was infuriating:

"Democrats, whenever we have a solution, we want to tax," Richardson said. "I'm different. I'm a tax cutter."

His appearance on last Sunday's Meet The Press was an epic flameout, unable to handle Timmeh's questions. And no, you can't be both a Yankees fan and a Red Sox fan. The sports gods and common decency do not allow it. But on the more substantive matters, a candidate who can't handle a tough interview doesn't deserve to be president.

After six straight gains in the Daily Kos straw poll, his support cratered this in May, from 13 percent to 8. It was clear the flirtation many had with him (including me) was over.

Richardson's efforts to break into the top tier have taken a serious hit. On the other hand -- and this might be a lagging indicator -- he has crawled up from "asterix" territory to the 6 percent range in the Iowa, NH, and Nevada aggregate polls. Another month will tell whether his debate and MTP messes have further impacted his candidacy.


THE REST

5. Chris Dodd

Did the sort of "leadership" thing on the Iraq Supplemental that Obama could've owned, and got lots of well-deserved props for it.

Joe Biden, Dennis Kucinich, and Mike Gravel

The Fox Three will face each other in Fox News' Reality Freak Show debate. Hilarity will ensue. (Especially the part about Biden considering himself a serious candidate.)

Then they'll still fail to register in any meaningful way in this race.==

obama is holding steady as he works on and unveils his policies.
someone said sprint and glide than sprint.
Obama is going just like his senate primary. Very very similar right down to the known polictical name, establishment and machine and tons of money of Blair Hull.
We know how that turned out.

In fact, Kos stated that he was considering supporting Richardson until Richardson's recent actions turned him off to Richardson. The notion that Kos supports Edwards is a meme drum up by supporters of a certain candidate who seem to be unhappy with Kos' holding this candidate's feet to the fire and calling him out when his rhetoric does not match his reality. The meme also helps excuse Edwards consistently winning the DailyKos straw polls.

==obama is holding steady as he works on and unveils his policies.==

That is likely to hurt him. Why? Right now he is a blank screen onto which people can project their hopes and dreams onto. As he begins to fill in the blanks about his program it is inevitable that some--not most or even a substantial minority--but some people who liked Obama the vague myth, Obama the man, Obama the rock star, will be dissappointed with his actual positions on the issues. We have seen some of this already after he did not propose universal health care and when he, like HRC, as Kos noted, did not lead on the capitulation bill. What will people say when he becomes a candidate, not a vague idea with a great smile?

Even a lot of IL Republican thought Keyes was an idiot and outsider and he was. Obama's playing a different field now and I wonderif he'll be able to hold up against them.

Charisma and brilliance normally will shuffle their way to the top. If someone asked which candidate is special, I guarantee Obama would be the runaway choice.

My handicapping instinct says Obama catches fire at some point.

Obama has been riding the greatest media honeymoon since Giuliani was routinely fellated by the media. He has the money (he has more Wall Street support than even HRC and Giuliani...), crowds. He is intelligent--but so are his opponents. He could not have asked for a more auspicious beginning to a presidential campaign for someone who was unknown just three years ago. At the end of the day, though, he will have to provide a steak to go with his sizzle. The jury is still out on that since he has not told us what he actually intends to do as president, aside from the usual platitudes, and how he intends to do it. His health care proposal is a case in point. Dems overwhelmingly favor universal health care. Obama's appetizer called for universal health care. However, when the substance was to be served we found that Obama is not proposing universal health care. This should--once people learn of it--cost him some support, particularly among those who live in daily terror that they may be devastated if they are struck with a serious illness or lose their health insurance. We don't know what he plans to do on other areas. He may prove to be disappointing in those areas as well. This is not unlikely since the hype surrounding him, his obvious talents, have created high expectations that people have projected onto the blank screen of Obama.

Perhaps, though, suddenly he will catch fire. He has the potential to do so. I would be worried, though, if I were in his campaign that he leads nowhere aside from his home state. If he goes 0-5 in the early states he will be toast by Super Tuesday.

He is in very good position to start moving up after September. Normally the person leading in the beginning starts to move down. Therefore his team is more than likely comfortable where he is right now.

It's a freaking roller coaster that still has a long stretch of ups and downs to play out.

I don't go there very often because I find the format hard to read and follow, but I always assumed (shouldn't do that, I guess) that Kos readers were well-informed AND against this war.

How could they support someone who not only voted for it, but co-sponsored it AND cheerleaded it to the point that his op-ed was published on the White House's website?

Odd.

Edwards has consistently lead in Iowa (Obama's neighboring state, which gives him the benefit of increased media exposure in part of Iowa due to being an Illinois senator), leads in Florida according to one poll, and is on par with Obama in New Hampshire and Nevada. The SC polls are inconsistent. The RCP average for Obama is 23.3% and 19% for Edwards. Chalk that up as another state where they are currently even.

It is hard to see Obama having the necessary momentum for Super Tuesday if he goes 0-for-5 in the early states. Edwards, on the other hand, would have the crucial Iowa bounce, which should break his tie with Obama in NH, if not allow him to leapfrog to victory in NH. His momentum would have a similar effect in SC and may secure victory for him in Florida.

Obama is deceptively strong right now because of his national poll strength, his financial support from Wall Street (even more than HRC and Giuliani...) and 100,000 contributors, and arguably the media's aim to make this a HRC-Obama race. Unless he finds an early state where he can win, it will take a miracle for him to suddenly emerge as the dominant candidate on Super Tuesday. He may be this year's Wes Clark. Clark was consistently second in the national polls over the winter of 2003. He didn't contest Iowa and finished a distant 3rd in NH. He was done after that.

I think this race will wind up being a battle between HRC and an alternative to HRC. Both Edwards and Obama will not remain viable after Super Tuesday. Right now, Edwards has the upper hand in winning the elimination round with Obama to advance to the championship round with HRC.

In the polls, and in money donated. Yet he was pretty much ignored by the media. Obama, on the other hand has not been exactly ignored by the media thusfar.....PS Clark may have been a distant third in NH, but Edwards was an even more distant fourth!

The media cannot be blamed for Clark's loss. Kerry and Edwards were written off by the media until after Iowa. Clark rode a huge crest of publicity when he joined the race and quickly vaulted into the national lead. He then fumbled a few times by saying that he would have voted for the IWR and then saying otherwise the next day, a poor performance in the first debate he was in, and some other mistakes. In the end, though, what sunk Clark was skipping Iowa. Had he contested it and finishing in the top 2 he would have been a viable candidate.

Edwards was 4th in NH but was on par with Clark (I think they were both at 12%. Holy Joe was not far behind them either in 5th. Remember "I am in a statistical dead heat for 3rd!"). The difference was that Edwards finished a strong 2nd in Iowa the week before. That provided him with enough momentum to continue. Clark did not have that,

Where were you?

Clark was not mentioned for 19 days straight on "Inside Politics" with Judy Woodruff throught December and January 2003/04. The media completely and totally ignored his win in Oklahoma except to mention that his driver got a speeding ticket.

I might give you that they didn't pin much hope on Kerry, but they talked non-stop about Edwards.

The point in all this is that the media DID play a big role and lost a lot of support for Clark. They talked all about Edwards and to this day, many people think he did better than Clark, but he didn't. Clark beat Edwards in five of the eight primary races in which they both competed (before Clark dropped out in early February).

I bet, if you asked around, most people would think that Edwards beat clark in NH and won OK, but that wouldn't be true.

Again, you stated Clark was consistently second in polls in December 03. Reality was that in many of the polls during this time Dean and Clark were tied. Yet the media placed almost all emphasis on Dean. It was Dean this and Dean that, and Clark was barely mentioned if at all, even though he was tied at the time with the lead. Dean was considered and annointed the leader by the media, even though he shared the lead. In one debate I recall a moderator, I think it was Judy Woodruff, walking way over and in-your-face to Clark and grilling Clark in a condescending school-marm "attitude". He was able to handle himself ok but he was certainly not given even treatment by her. Yes, not competing in Iowa was a "hind-sight is 20/20 mistake." However, during the months preceeding Iowa and New Hampshire Dean got a disproportionate number of media mentions compared to Clark. Clark had even surpassed Dean in internet, and all the press could talk about was Dean's success in the internet as if Clark didn't own a computer.

Yes, the media played a role. It will again in 08, sorry to say.

"Edwards was 4th in NH but was on par with Clark (I think they were both at 12%. Holy Joe was not far behind them either in 5th. Remember "I am in a statistical dead heat for 3rd!")".

There was a 1% separation between Clark and Edwards, it was not a statistical dead heat unless you believe elections have a statistical margin of error. I do believe it is polls that have statistical dead heats, not elections.

Another point is that Clark had postitioned himself to being close to Dean and gaining fast in New Hampshire before Iowa happened. At that time, Edwards and Kerry were not considered to be significant contenders. If Dean had squeaked by in Iowa, this would mean Kerry and Edwards would not have gotten HUGE boosts and Clark would have been positioned to do quite well in New Hampshire, maybe even win even though he had bypassed Iowa. What changed the entire dynamic of 04 was the unexpected victory of Iowa by Kerry. Then, of course, there was only two words in the media's vocabulary for a week, and that was Kerry and Edwards if you don't count their talk about the Dean scream.

Yes, it was a mistake for Clark to bypass Iowa. However, this is also hindsight. If Clark had entered IOwa at that late date, he could have diluted the non-Dean vote to insure that Dean would win. That could have been the effect also, and maybe Dean would have been unstoppable.
We can play Monday Morning Quarterback all day. But I think the point I am trying to make is that the media didn't go against Clark as much as it ignored Clark.

This is ridiculous. That's hardly "an even more distant fourth". Edwards had many heartbreaking losses that were very close. The only primary Clark won was Oklahoma, and he beat Edwards there by virtually the same margin, far less than a half of a percent.

Edwards took third to Lieberman's second in Delaware by 26 votes. Sure, Clark stomped Edwards in Arizona and North Dakota, but Edwards obliterated Clark in Missouri (a neighbor to Clark's home state), South Carolina, Virginia and others. In South Carolina--which he won--Edwards had 45% of the vote, while Clark only eked out 7%.

Putting aside Iowa, since Clark couldn't compete there due to his late entrance, the two of them competed in 13 primaries and Edwards beat him in 8 of them.

Clark was hardly ignored by the media; he was the great savior.

Dean won one primary, Clark won one primary, Edwards won two (and beat Kerry in another one) and Kerry won the rest.

Once again, as Daniel Patrick Moynihan said: "Everyone's entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts"

Just for fun, here's the rundown of the Clark/Edwards tussel in '04:

It went like this:

Since the messiah didn't contest Iowa, we won't talk about how Edwards took 32% there.

--Clark took 3rd in New Hampshire, besting Edwards' 4th by less than four tenths of a percent (27,254 v. 26,416) Oooh.

--Clark walked all over Edwards in Arizona taking 2nd with 27% against Edwards' 7% (60,109 v. 15,583)

--Edwards took 3rd to Lieberman in Delaware by a heartbreaking 26 votes, but still beat Clark. (Edwards: 3,657 or 11%; Clark: 3,145 or 10%)

--Edwards beat the living shit out of Clark in Missouri, taking 2nd with 25% of the vote (103,198) while Clark could only scrape up a 4th place showing with 4% of the vote (18,328)

--Clark then clobbered Edwards in New Mexico by taking 2nd with 21% of the vote (19,828) while Edwards gasped to 4th with a mere 11% (10,953)

--Clark also stomped Edwards in North Dakota by taking 2nd with 24% (a tiny little constituency of 2,502) while Edwards came in 4th with 10% (not much of a party with only 1,025)

--Clark actually won a primary (Oklahoma) but it was a mighty thin victory. Edwards was second and Kerry was third. The margin of this ONLY VICTORY FOR CLARK was anaemic to say the least: less than four tenths of a percent, a very similar margin to the triumphant trouncing in New Hampshire. (Clark: 90,526; Edwards 89,310) Let's stop here for a minute. The only victory Clark had in the primary season was so very very thin.

--Now we come to South Carolina. Edwards absolutely annihilated everyone. He took the state by 45%, while Clark could only cobble up 7%. This was one of the biggest blowouts of the whole campaign. Edwards: 131,174; Clark: 21,011.

--Michigan: Edwards took 3rd (13% and 21,919 votes) while Clark could only claw his way to 5th (4% and 10,986)

--On to Washington. Edwards got his ass kicked with a 4th place showing (7%, 1,571) but Clark floundered at 5th (3%, 768 votes) Let's revisit that: he couldn't even get a thousand votes.

--Maine continued the trend: Edwards was 4th with 8% (1,167), but Clark could only eke out a 5th with 4% (564 real live entire persons)

--Tennessee was where Clark staked his hopes, lying about Edwards and Kerry voting for the Bush tax cuts, but even there he could only manage 3rd (Edwards: 26%, 97,746; Clark: 23%, 85,182)

--The deathblow came the same day in Virginia. Once again, Kerry won, but Edwards was 2nd with 27% (104,813) while Clark spluttered in with 9% (36,474)

This is a snapshot of where we are today, not where we will be when the votes are cast.

I expect Obama to rise further, myself.

courageous enough to smak the Pubs around. Yes I know he sticks his foot in his bouth once in a while, but to me that just shows that he's human like the rest of us and not some preprogrammed robot!

There''s a very long time until the primaries, and I'm still rooting for Joe!

A corporate shill.

of getting due to his arrogance? hell, he was one of the few to get out there and speak his mind. Didn't like his bkcy vote but other than that he appears to be one of the more thoughtful candidates and explains himself. Course he is going nowhere as now the media seems to be shunning him. Guess Edwards is next on my list of those running. Clark is on top of my candidate list that is not in the running.

he paced himself. Working on policy and unveiling at pace. I wouldn't look for a push until fall. this so reminds me of his senate primary here. And we all remember how that turned out....

Word.

Bake

He seems to be a mix of Obama and Edwards, and that's not really a good thing. He seems to have a similar appeal to Edwards, but, like Obama, doesn't stand for much of anything at the moment (aside from global warming).

If Gore is to have any real shot at it, I think both Edwards and Obama would have to drop out very early. (As in somewhere IA/NH and Primary Day.)

That Kos would dismiss people like Kucinich with a "hilarity" comment tells me all I need to know about Kos. The fact that he's been supportive of Richardson, of all people put him clearly on a pro-corporate side.

The party is deciding what it wants to be--and clearly it doesn't seem that it has any interest in being progressive. It talks the talk and in the end, Clinton's numbers rise. Part of this is media propaganda. It's strong and it wants this thing narrowed to two or three flashy candidates.

Flash and style sell. Substance matters little.

The state of the party is not good when a Republican-lite candidate sits atop the list.

Presidential campaigns aren't really a good mechanism for that. Candidates who want to win are crafting positions that will appeal to enough voters for them to win- all within a pretty narrow framework.

Look at the esoteric differences we are discussing between candidates who are leading the polls; Not whether or not they voted the right way on an important bill, but the sequence in which they cast their votes. Not whether they support expanded healthcare coverage, but how fast they say they will implement it.

It takes a rare and special leader to significantly change the direction of a Party. Otherwise, I think it happens outside of the presidential campaign circus. I think Dean is trying to do that by building the grassroots, to make a place at the table for regular people, and yes, I suppose that means lessening the influence of big corporations and big-money donors a bit. But without a catastrophic event, this will take a while.

Somebody like DK has to know that lightning would have to strike him for him to have a chance. He's going to beat the big-money system by... not raising any money? Good luck with that, and hopefully it will plant some seeds for next time.

What you call "flash and style" I call "drama". I think that's what the media wants. There can be substance there too- the media isn't purposely avoiding substance per se- but there HAS to be drama. So a candidate, if they recognize this, has to find ways to create drama if their personal life doesn't already have it. Biden actually has some with his brain surgery, but that may not ultimately work in his favor. Obama and HC have it built in, now Edwards (and Elizabeth) do too. Dean created it with the successful use of internet/grassroots support. DK does not. He's a little guy from Ohio with some ideas that are a bit too unfamiliar for a lot of people to consider in a president. Until or unless he can figure out or stumble upon some drama, he's going to struggle. It's like a "hook" in a pop song; some reason for you to want to listen again, a reason to care.

But people DO have this choice--now. They can make these decisions now. And that goes all the way to the top. We can wait around for something to happen, or decide to have an influence on it. If you cast the "strategy" vote, accepting the media candidates and rolling the dice for a win, you may get there. Your candidate may in fact win.

But what have you won?

If, at the end of the day, lobbying reform isn't really lobby reform, universal healthcare isn't really universal health care, and trade deals are simply disguised to look better than they are because of the misdirection of "side" agreements, what have you won?

I dismiss the notion that we only have the choice to build from the bottom up--or that we have no choice but to get a little dirty with (wink-wink) corporate money and perhaps settle for the lesser evil.


This country is in serious trouble and waiting for all the pieces to fall into just the right place may be too late. If Kucinich has to beg for money it's because a lot of people who may find themselves agreeing with him on issues but sending money to another candidate because of that candidate being a "star" undermine the things he represents.

So I do believe the party must decide what it is or is to become. I'm just not interested in being the "lesser of two evils" party. I want something more positive than that. Perhaps that's naive. But when districts can be adjusted to favor a particular party or money rules the day, I'm not sure it's possible to do everything from the ground up.

Baby steps are fine but not an answer in themselves.

We decide this, or we don't.

If we decide(the party) to stay the course, it will do just that.

But if we aren't happy with what we get we shouldn't complain. We did it.

...."doesn't stand for much of anything at the moment (aside from global warming)". HUH? I would suggest you educate yourself on the many stands Gore has taken in addition to global warming. Perhaps his books. Or pay attention.

On New Years '08! :boring:

Gimme a break, Kos. Edwards gets hammered by a lot of us for co-sponsoring IWR and sticking with the war through the 2004 campaign. Many Dems, including yours truly, would never consider him as our first choice for that reason alone. His 180-degree turn on the war also makes him a fat target for the Republicans if he ever gets the nom, which looks increasingly doubtful.

Edwards has turned up the volume on opposing the war in this campaign, but the political value of that is reduced by his own history. How else can you explain why the so-called "strongest antiwar voice" is stuck in the polls in a campaign where Iraq is considered the top issue by the majority of voters?

He doesn't have any reason to protect himself on the other side because he is not having to vote on the senate floor about any of it. He don't have a dog in hunt so how could anyone know for certain anyway :shrug:

As far as i can see for the rest of my life is that just about every politician seems like a prostitute and a grain of salt will always be needed

As Kos noted. That wasn't the first time certain candidates have done this.

==How else can you explain why the so-called "strongest antiwar voice" is stuck in the polls in a campaign where Iraq is considered the top issue by the majority of voters?==

Media coverage that focuses on the corporate candidates and the relatively small number of people who are paying attention right now. How many people know that both HRC and Obama both want to continue the war indefinitely with a "residual" or "limited" force in Iraq? Even on DU there is little discussion of the plans for Iraq, aside from the hypocritical sniping that singles out HRC from people who say nothing about Obama's identical plan.

Your post is telling. The emphasis is on 2002-2004. You did not dispute what Kos actually said "Edwards is currently the strongest voice." It is sad that despite all the hype and promise the Obama campaign is reduced to running on what he did in obscurity 4-5 years ago rather than his platform for president or what he has done in the past two months, let alone the past two years in the senate...

As far as Edwards being stuck, so is Obama. The difference is that Edwards actually leads outside of his home state. As Kos noted, Edwards is in a stronger position right now. This is amazing given the corporate media's support of Obama and HRC and Wall Street's backing of the dynamic corporate duo. Edwards message is resonating where people have a chance to hear him in person.

Anyone who doesn't follow the anointed "progressive" position is being bamboozled. In "progressive" world it isn't possible that anyone could legitimately disagree with their position, so it is is always ascribed to some other nefarious reason...

iowa and nh? please give me a break. nothing is going to be settled until the big states vote

At this point I'm not crazy about any of them. I was liking Richardson for a while but his seeming inability to deal with the likes of Tim Russert are making him considerably more unattractive.

Please Al, maybe you might be willing to reconsider that "I have no plans to be a candidate" stuff.

but it's pretty sad sitting here in it. :(

Unless something dramatic happens, I still won't know who to vote for on Feb. 5, 2008.

Do you vote for the charismatic, exciting person who you think could carry your party to victory even if you have qualms, because of lack of experience in an executive position, about his or her ability to actually run the government should he or she win. In this case I'm talking particularly about Barack Obama and maybe John Edwards if I can get over his strong original support for the Iraq War Resolution.

Or do you vote for the person who has a great deal of high level experience, who you feel confident could do the job, and has a vision that you generally support but also has a record of failures as well as successes that can be attacked and worst of all is seemingly unable to project well i.e. communicate in sound bites and lie convincingly, on television. In this case I'm talking about Bill Richardson and possibly if he gets into the race and immediately reverts to 2000 woodman candidate mode, Al Gore.

Personally, I'd support Gore even if he has a relapse of candidatitis. As for the others I frankly don't know. Fortunately we have plenty of time. Worse comes to worse I'll throw a protest vote Dennis Kucinich's way if I truly can't stand any of the others come primary time.

:rofl:

That's about the long and short of it.

He's second in Iowa and tied for 1st in NH...I don't see why people are talking about him losing it all so soon.