Should Richardson now be considered a first-tier candidate?

First, this seems to me to be an academic question. If he is not "first-tier" now he will soon be. Secondly, Richardson, because he has largely been ignored by the press, will receive some negative coverage when he joins the first-tier. We will have to see what effect that has on his poll numbers. I suspect he will be more immune than most to negative publicity. Why? Richardson is not running on image; he is running on his resume. His resume will remain intact regardless of what the right-wing or rival campaigns do.

As has long been noted, national polls mean little at this point. Let's look at his performance in early states (even with relatively low name ID!) versus the anointed first-tier candidates. I will use pollster.com's averages from recent polls.

Iowa

1) Edwards 26.5%
2) Clinton 21.3%
3) Obama 19.3%
4) Richardson 12%
5) Gore 7%

Like elsewhere (aside from his home state), Richardson is not threatening for the lead in Iowa. However, he is within 7 points of Barack Obama. This is phenomenal when you factor in the amount of press Obama has gotten versus Richardson and the fact that Obama is from neighboring Illinois and benefits from media market overlap in part of Iowa. Despite these handicaps, the New Mexico governor is threatening to overhaul him in Iowa (compare the trajectory of the two candidates in Iowa). Similarly, he has cut Clinton's lead over him to the single digits. This is impressive as well, given the press HRC has gotten and her instant name ID.

New Hampshire

1) Clinton 33.4%
2) Obama 19.3%
3) Edwards 16.4%
4) Gore 12.2%
5) Richardson 9.1%

Like in Iowa, Richardson's trajectory is sharply upwards in the Granite State. He is within 7 points of Edwards and within 10 points of second place Barack Obama. Both Edwards and Obama are slightly dipping in the polls in NH while Richardson is rapidly rising (as is Gore, although at a slower rate. Of course, if Gore runs he will skyrocket in the polls so his current standing means little). Edwards and Obama, contrary to popular belief, are basically on par with each other in New Hampshire. If things continue as they are Richardson will join them in the battle to be the alternative to HRC in New Hampshire.

Nevada

1) Clinton 37%
2) Obama 17%
3) Edwards 13%
4) Gore 10%
5) Richardson 6%

Conventional wisdom holds that if Richardson is going to win an early state it will be Nevada. He has the regional advantage there and Nevada has a substantial Hispanic population. It is surprising that he performs worse in Nevada than in NH and Iowa. However, the candidates are barely campaigning there. Richardson is the exception as he has more far more trips to Nevada than anyone else. However, I doubt many people in Nevada are following the race at this point. If Iowa and New Hampshire are any indication, he should experience a similar rise in Nevada once the state tuns in. It should be noted that after moving up from 1% in March Richardson seems to have stalled in Nevada. Of course, so has everyone else. Let's see what happens when they begin campaigning there in earnest.

South Carolina

1) Obama 32%
2) Clinton 26.7%
3) Edwards 11.9%
4) Gore 10%
5) Richardson 1.3%

He has yet to gain traction in South Carolina. Of course, like Nevada, the candidates are not seriously campaigning in the Palmetto State yet.

Florida

1) Clinton 38.1%
2) Obama 17.3%
3) Gore 13.6 %
4) Edwards 12.5%
5) Richardson 3.7%

Ditto my comments for South Carolina.

California

1) Clinton 38.2%
2) Gore 25%*
3) Obama 19.9%
4) Edwards 14.7%
5) Richardson 6.5%

*Gore's number comes from one poll taken in March.

California is not an "early state" in the traditional sense. However, since it is the chief prize on Super Tuesday, and important to Richardson's strategy (see the candidate tracking thread posted yesterday), I included it. It is another state in which Richardson has the regional advantage and also has a large Latino population. He is within 8 points of Edwards and 13 points behind Obama. More significantly, Richardson has been steadily rising in California while Edwards has stalled and Obama is freefalling (he started from a base of 33% before he even began running). Do not be surprised if he moves into second place in California (if President Gore does not run) by the end of the year. Of course, the final result in California will be greatly influenced by the results in the five early states.

In conclusion, Richardson is trending upwards in the two most important states and is within striking distance of second and third place in both states. If those candidates are considered first-tier there is a strong case for Richardson to also be considered among that group. Even if he is not, he is clearly the top second-tier candidate and it is only a matter of when, not if, he is anointed a first-tier candidate.

the only other candidate demanding a full withdrawal from Iraq.

But he's close. I think Richardson could easily become a "dark horse."

I give him credit for achieving what he has so far and I think he may turn out to be a very strong candidate, but he is still second tier right now.

everyone seems to like Richardson, except he doesn't shine in the debates..

That is why, while he sucked in the first two debates and MTP, was average today, he is rising in the polls. He is running on his resume, not his rhetoric or style. People who want an orator or style are not going to support him anyway.

If Gore doesn't run, then I hope Richardson gets to first tier, though.

Poor performance at the first debate. Barely better performance in second debate. Failure to gain medias attention. You can claim Hillary and Obama dominate the media, but Edwards and Biden both have found ways to at least get some press. And he really hasn't done anything to set himself apart, and make his niche as an alternative to Hillary and Obama like Edwards has.

Richardson is being pumped up with more good press coverage than he deserves. His rise in the polls is a direct result of that press coverage. The corporate media will keep promoting him because he is the most pro-corporate, pro-free trade candidate in the race.

If he ever begins leading in the polls the dirt on him will come out and his campaign will end quickly. He isn't a serious candidate and one no liberal should support.

You speak the truth, so I don't have to say it.

:toast:

I can't believe I was the first person to challenge the idea that Richardson is some kind of rebel fighting against a blackout from the corporate media. That couldn't be further from the truth. They say nothing but good things about him while ignoring his glaring flaws.

The reason he is getting so little press coverage is not because he is a rebel but because he is in the single digits in national polls and, until recently, nowhere in the early states.

I agree with you on his politics. He is a pro-business DLCer. Still, if we are going to be stuck with a Third Way Democrat, Richardson may be preferable to Clobama. He is better on Iraq than both of them at least. He is probably more electable than Clobama solely on his resume. After the stunning incompetence of *, Richardson may be exactly what voters want.

I will reserve overall judgment on him until I learn more about him.

You are right. He has not received any negative press yet. If (when IMO) he joins the first-tier, he will be scrutinized and we don't know how that will affect him. I think he is the most immune to that, though, since he is running on his resume, not an image or anything else that is relatively fragile.

No matter how many misleading and distorting posts you make about Obama, he is not a "third way" Democrat and never has been. He has also had a stronger and more consistent position against the war in Iraq than Richardson, Clinton, Biden or Edwards. I'm not letting you distort the record unanswered.

Richardson has already been getting more press coverage than Dodd, Biden or Kucinich. That's the reason for his rise in the polls. Obama earned his press coverage by raising money from thousands of grass-roots activists who are inspired by his progressive message of unity.

Surely you recognize that HRC is a Third Way Democrat...

==He has also had a stronger and more consistent position against the war in Iraq than Richardson, Clinton, Biden or Edwards.==

So have Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul. Does that make them progressives?


==Obama earned his press coverage by raising money from thousands of grass-roots activists who are inspired by his progressive message of unity.==

That is amazing, especially in a post calling someone out for distorting facts. It is kind of difficult to raise money for a presidential campaign when you are not running for president, right? :crazy:

My suspicion is that he will draw his votes from HRC and Obama. He will cut into HRC's support among DLC-type Democrats. He could be presented to them as a more electable DLC option. I think he will also draw much of his support from Obama. Obama has a lot of support from those who automatically write-off anyone who voted for the IWR. Richardson is an attractive alternative to such voters. He passes their litmus test, is arguably more electable due to his lengthy and diverse experience and regional advantage in the southwest, and is better on Iraq.

He will also "take" votes from other candidates but I believe most of his votes will come from HRC and Obama. Instead of dividing the ABC vote, Richardson may wind up dividing the corporate and Third Way vote.

The Media try to rush everything and ends up screwing the
Country.

Do not let them forget they gave us GWB -- Now they are trying
to push our candidates along so the Republicans take the Presidency.
Watch these People.

What has Richardson done to move up??? I have not seen a
single story on him since the Debates. He did not set
the world on fire there. Uhmmm? All of a sudden, I am
hearing he is ahead of Edwards and the Media want to move
him and Edwards to 2ond Tier. Hilary and Obama only top
tier. We have until next January....

The Media has not shown such good judgement re candidates
in years.

His ads have been effective and he seems to be gaining ground the old-fashioned way on the ground in Iowa and New Hampshire. Richardson, has sucked during the debates. That doesn't matter much in his case. He is running on his resume, not his rhetorical skills or style.

His resumee and qualifications have far surpassed anyone else in the field who's running.

I don't know where everyone is getting all this bullshit about the MSM showering Richardson with "good press." If anything, they have been pretty much ignoring Richardson because they don't want him to arise as a credible threat to HRC's DLC/ThirdWay base.

Thank you, media, for telling us how to rank our candidates.

The first tier (if you will) is made up of people with name recognition and/or money. They should all be on a level playing field so WE can decide our nominee.

And based on Richardson's qualifications he should indeed be considered as much as any other candidate.

...for enabling election fraud in 2004; in fact, for suppressing latino votes by stopping a recount.
Stop giving this Quisling a pass, already

He can make all the speeches and sign all the bills he wants to now-where was he when we needed him?

Handing Bush the election, that's where he was.

I suggest you check search DU for the true story about the election. I don't have the location handy.

Anyone who fucks over the voter is not our friend. What Richardson did is what Lamone, Blackwell, and other Reep operatives did. He has never been taken to task for it. And it DID help Bush win, by feeding into the "nothing to see here, move along" meme that was so prevalent after the 2004 theft. A little integrity would have gone a long way at that moment, and Richardson failed to display it.

Reminds me of what Tom Lehrer said of Werner Von Braun: "A man whose allegiance is ruled by expedience". I do not trust Richardson.

http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/6/20/111656/251



And here's an OpEd he wrote just a few weeks ago:


A reliable, verifiable vote in 2008
By Bill Richardson
June 19, 2007

In November 2008, voters will go to the polls and choose the next president of the United States and their representatives to Congress — or will they?

According to Common Cause, more than a third of our states still use voting machines that do not support hand recounts and provide no auditable paper trail. “One person, one vote” is the hallmark of America’s democracy, but to make sure that our next president is elected by people, not by the malfunction of an electronic voting machine, we must immediately move to a durable paper-ballot system backed by regular audits in every state in the nation. For these reasons, Congress should quickly pass H.R. 811, the Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act of 2007, introduced by Rep. Rush Holt (D-N.J.) and cosponsored by more than 220 Democratic and Republican members of Congress.

Every federal election since 2000 has clearly shown that these machines can and do malfunction. In New Mexico, in 2002 these voting systems lost the votes of almost 13,000 citizens, and in 2004 they failed to register the candidate of choice for many voters. If there is no accurate and verifiable paper record of voter intent, there is no accountable means of determining a winner. Worse still, voter confidence is damaged and diminished. Any elected official’s authority is only as strong as the voter’s belief that the election was won fair and square.

In 2005 a grassroots coalition of concerned New Mexicans demanded action — and we acted. Working together with these citizens and the state legislature, I fought for legislation to increase voter confidence in our democracy through specific and concrete measures. We improved and standardized training for poll workers. We established statewide standards for provisional ballots to ensure that voters in low-income areas will not be disenfranchised. We made absentee voting fair, simple and uniform. And we established a random, statewide 2 percent audit of voting machines.

One year later, I signed a bill to move New Mexico to an all-paper-ballot system using optical scanners to count votes. We ended the hodgepodge of systems that confused voters and raised questions about reliability.

New Mexico’s conversion to a paper-ballot system made sense. Paper ballots are the least expensive, most secure form of voting available. For people with disabilities, ballot-marking devices were available at every polling location to ensure that every voter was treated equally. Voters who required assistance to vote in their native language, such as Navajo, could also use ballot-marking devices. Using optical scanners meant quick and accurate results, while at the same time paper ballots became the permanent, verifiable, durable record of the vote.

Congress should expect any transition to be met by demands for transitional funding and a go-slow approach from some state and county election officials. Any bill should indeed include full funding to transition and maintain paper-ballot machines, and ongoing funding for manual audits — as the Holt bill does. That includes reimbursing those states that have shown leadership and moved to a full-paper-ballot system. I call on Congress to go further and provide funds to train volunteers, staff and election officers to use the new machinery.

Congress must also resist demands for a go-slow approach that unduly delays the sensible, pragmatic approach in the Holt legislation. In New Mexico, within eight months of mandating a voter-verified paper-ballot system statewide, we held elections that were accountable and verifiable.

That result is due in no small part to the diligent and committed work of state and county election officials, and the poll workers in each of our precincts. To ensure the integrity of our next election, America must move to a paper ballot system by 2008, not 2010.

One person, one vote is in jeopardy if we do not act boldly and quickly. It’s time we undertake national electoral reform that restores confidence in our electoral system and our democracy.

I urge Congress to pass and fully fund the Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act of 2007, to go a step further and fund training for election officials, and move America to a reliable and verifiable paper-ballot system now.

Richardson, a Democratic presidential candidate, is the governor of New Mexico.

Richardson and his pet SOS set it so high that the Greens could't pay it. Then they wiped out the balloting information so a recount would have been impossible.

Granted, he later came out for cleaner elections-when it would make him look good. All political calculation, and to hell with the rights of voters.

As to Kerry laying down and not fighting-damned straight. It's why I despise the man now.

But the guilt of other Dems does not absolve Richardson for what he did.

Was the bond set higher for this race than others? Is the amount part of state law?

Seriously, I don't know. I'm just thinking that if it's set in law, any Party requesting a recount would have to meet that bond. That can't be blamed on any one person. But, as I said, I don't know the details.

The State Canvassing Board required that the candidates pay the entire amount upfront. The Board estimated that cost at $1.4 million. That decision was contrary to New Mexico law; there is no legal requirement that campaigns pay the full cost in advance, nor any way to accurately estimate the cost of the recount before it is completed.

As to the erasure of balloting information: NM had the highest percentage of Presidential undervotes in the nation. The machines were cleared while recount cases were still pending in court. "Oh, well, the data is gone. Ooopsie! Can't do a recount now anyway....."
Richardson and his SOS took advantage of a loophole to erase the data, so we will never know what they were hiding.

Richardson, for all the nice things he has said since then, acted in a manner opposite to them when it was time to actually walk the walk in 2004.

I rest my case.

but if you want to put him in the top tier go ahead