Latest

Lobby

Search

Options

Help

Login

ABC's Invisible Primary Ratings

Printer-friendly format

Email this thread to a friend

Bookmark this thread

This topic is archived.

Home » Discuss » DU Groups » Democrats » John Kerry Group

Dr Ron

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-23-06 10:03 AM
Original message

ABC's Invisible Primary Ratings

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=1754637&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312

Totally meaningless, but might be fun to look at. I don't see why Edwards is so high considering all he really has is a single undistinguished Senate term, but if he has the support of the right people he might do well. If it comes down to a southern candidate breadking out, I wonder how he will do againt Warner. Edwards wins on charisma and name recognition, but Warner has more meaningful credentials.

Kerry is 4th overall--well above where many would have ranked him in the fall of 2003. Many of the subcategories are pure opinion. On the key one, ability to raise money, he is second to only Hillary. It is based on this, as well as name recognition and networks build up in 2004 that I think he has the best chance of being the storngest challenger to Clinton. Assuming Gore doesn't run, and Feingold's censure move works in the blogosphere but not much beyond, Kerry may also have an edge as the anti-war candidate with the best chance.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

TayTay

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-23-06 10:14 AM
Response to Original message

1. They see ups and downs for everyone

This far out, that seems about right.

Things will change. Unexpected events will pop up. Someone will turn out to have a tin ear and they will make mistakes. Someone that people have written off will have a surge for something unexpected that happened and they were in a position to take advantage of that. Blind, dumb and unplannable luck will favor some and not others. And some people will have to withdraw for personal reasons that can't be forseen now.

We had 10 candidates, unannounced of course, in early 2003. Looks like we will have about the same number in 2007.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Mass

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-23-06 10:16 AM
Response to Original message

2. Definitively prejudiced against Kerry for campaign skills.

Edited on Thu Mar-23-06 10:17 AM by Mass

but it is not surprising coming from The Note.

Some are purely objective and difficult to cheat on, like money or netroots, but some are really, really subjective.

Fun to read, though, and Kerry comes much higher than some would think.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

karynnj

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-23-06 10:53 AM
Response to Reply #2

3. I agree -

Also on biography of candidate and spouse. Their comment that you can also die by your biography was absolutely uncalled for - Kerry nearly won in spite of a very stacked deck. Clearly, Kerry also knows that he and Teresa need to find a way to spotlight Teresa's accomplishments and correct her image. She has done so much good - that they have a huge amount to work with. (Also, Teresa's foundation could likely publize it's accomplishments better.)

The anti-terrorism credentials one is utterly crazy. It is interesting that he comes out as high as he does where it's clear that they have totally blown up the negatives on TV comminication and campaigning - somehow he beat all the 2004 candidates.

It is clear that they are enamored with Edwards and Warner.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

wisteria

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-23-06 01:27 PM
Response to Reply #2

6. Still, what is the facination with Edwards? Do you know

how he rated during the last election? I didn't follow him or the polls back then.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Mass

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-23-06 01:30 PM
Response to Reply #6

8. Conv. wisdom that it will be somebody from the South with charisma

Edited on Thu Mar-23-06 01:32 PM by Mass

These are the main criteria for The Note. As charisma is in the eyes of the beholder, they totally underestimate Kerry on this point.

This said, in the list they have, except for Clinton and Kerry, he is the one who has the largest name recognition and it is an advantage.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

brooklynite

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-23-06 01:15 PM
Response to Original message

4. Initial Candidate ratings

ABC Vote 2008: Invisible Primary Ratings:
(The closer the rating is to 1.0, the better chance of securing the nomination.)

Republicans
John McCain.....1.42
George Allen....3.58
Mitt Romney.....4.05
Rudy Giuliani...4.63
Mike Huckabee...5.53
Newt Gingrich...6.11
Bill Frist......6.16
George Pataki...7.00
Chuck Hagel.....7.89
Sam Brownback...8.26
Tom Tancredo...10.58

Democrats
Potential Candidates
Hillary Clinton...1.74
John Edwards......2.89
Mark Warner.......4.00
John Kerry........5.68
Tom Vilsack.......5.95
Evan Bayh.........5.95
Bill Richardson...6.58
Joe Biden.........6.68
Wesley Clark......7.47
Tom Daschle.......7.63
Russ Feingold.....8.42

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

TayTay

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-23-06 01:22 PM
Response to Reply #4

5. Hey Brooklynite, welcome to the JK Forum

Edited on Thu Mar-23-06 01:22 PM by TayTay

and thanks for the chart.

I do't think McCain has all the support that the beltway people seem to think he does. That alone casts some doubt on this for me. (I just don't see it. He did that weird stuff at the Tennessee straw poll a week or so agao and I just think he is that popular with the Repub base.)

Hey, my sister used to live in Carroll Gardens in Brooklyn. Visited her there a couple of times. I love Brooklyn! (But not the Yankees.)

Welcome: :patriot:

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

brooklynite

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-23-06 01:29 PM
Response to Reply #5

7. Howdy...

I'm in Brooklyn Heights (about 1/2 mile away).

I'm disregarding all ratings for candidates (including McCain AND Clinton) until January of next year. At this point, its all based on name recognition, and nobody's being bloodied by their primary opponents. That said, I'm putting my initial money on Warner or Vilsack as successful southern/midwestern Governors.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

ProSense

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-23-06 05:58 PM
Response to Reply #7

9. Welcome!

I love Brooklyn Heights, the view from the Promenade:

http://www.worldfromtheweb.com/Parks/BrookProm/BrookProm.html

I went to HS in downtown Brooklyn.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

ProSense

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-23-06 06:02 PM
Response to Original message

10. More polls...

to disregard:

http://www.pollingreport.com/2008.htm#misc

http://www.pollingreport.com/WH08dem.htm

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

wisteria

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-23-06 06:29 PM
Response to Reply #10

11. Well at least he registers on the polls. n/t

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

ProSense

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-23-06 06:38 PM
Response to Reply #11

12. A couple of times

they took Hillary out of the equation, and Kerry came in first. I still don't buy those numbers for Hillary.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

ProSense

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Mar-24-06 08:06 AM
Response to Reply #12

13. Interesting 2003 poll

I think Hillary Clinton registers in the polls for the same reason Rice does: some people are embracing the idea of a woman president. In other words, I don't think this is about Hillary Clinton as a super candidate. My theory on the fundraising is that people give to her campaign because they see her (in large part because of Bill Clinton) as representative of the Democratic Party. So how many Democratic candidates is Hillary supporting?

Ipsos-Reid/Cook Political Report Poll. Nov. 4-6 & 18-20, 2003. N=527 likely Democratic presidential primary/caucus voters nationwide. MoE ± 4.4.
.
"It is early, but if you had to choose today, which ONE of the following nine candidates would you be most likely to support for the Democratic nomination for president? . . ."
3-Nov
%
Howard Dean 20%
Wesley Clark 16%
Richard Gephardt 14%
Joe Lieberman 12%
John Kerry 10%
John Edwards 5%
Dennis Kucinich 4%
Al Sharpton 3%
Carol Moseley Braun 3%
Hillary Rodham Clinton (vol.) 1
Other/None/Not sure 12%
Bob Graham n/a

3-Apr
%
Howard Dean 6%
Wesley Clark n/a
Richard Gephardt 14%
Joe Lieberman 14%
John Kerry 19%
John Edwards 10%
Dennis Kucinich n/a
Al Sharpton 4%
Carol Moseley Braun 4%
Hillary Rodham Clinton (vol.) 1%
Other/None/Not sure 22%
Bob Graham 6%
.
Asked of those who made a choice and did not volunteer Hillary Rodham Clinton: "If New York Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton decided to seek the Democratic nomination for president, would you continue to support or would you prefer to support Hillary Rodham Clinton?"
Asked of those who did not have an initial preference: "If New York Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton decided to seek the Democratic nomination for president, would she be your first choice for the nomination?"
Recalculated preference:
3-Nov
%
Hillary Rodham Clinton 41%
Howard Dean 11%
Wesley Clark 11%
Richard Gephardt 7%
John Kerry 6%
Joe Lieberman 6%
John Edwards 3%
Dennis Kucinich 3%
Al Sharpton 1%
Carol Moseley Braun -
Other/None/Not sure 11%
Bob Graham n/a

3-Apr
%
Hillary Rodham Clinton 41%
Howard Dean 3%
Wesley Clark n/a
Richard Gephardt 7%
John Kerry 13%
Joe Lieberman 6%
John Edwards 6%
Dennis Kucinich n/a
Al Sharpton 2%
Carol Moseley Braun 1%
Other/None/Not sure 17%
Bob Graham 4%

I could be wrong, but Hillary beating out the field of 2004 candidates? Not likely.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

wisteria

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Mar-24-06 09:24 AM
Response to Reply #13

14. I don't think your wrong at all.

The polls from 2003 are interesting in that the media was speculating even then that Hillary was going to run and if it wasn't in 04 then there was hope in her camp that she would get the chance in 2008. The media played this up to mean Hill and Bill were secretly hoping Kerry would lose and weren't whole heartedly supporting him.
I am beside myself to think she could actually be that popular and well liked that she skyrockets her way to the top of every poll ever taken even in 2003. When her name comes up in the company of other Democrats -at least in my circle- she is not well received. I won't even get into the republicans I know and their feeling towards her. Many of my Republican friends and family favored or voted for Kerry over Bush, but their nod towards Kerry does not extend out towards Senator Clinton.

I am with you, I can't prove the numbers are wrong, I just don't think they are correct when it comes to Hillary Clinton.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

TayTay

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Mar-24-06 09:38 AM
Response to Reply #14

15. It's the name recognition factor

and the ability to raise money, which the Clinton's have become very very good at. It's also some nostalgia for the Clinton Presidency. Given what we have now, I can understand some of this.

I think the Jr. Senator from New York is a highly capable and intelligent woman. I do not see her as President however. I also think this race will have twists and turns and upheavals in it that cannot possibly be predicted in advance. In other words, hang on, it will be a heck of a ride.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

wisteria

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Mar-24-06 09:57 AM
Response to Reply #15

16. I can understand the name recognition angle and even the

nostalgia for the Clinton times. But, how does the ability to raise large sums of money affect these poll numbers. Are you saying these are all insiders being polled and not the general public? Maybe that is what I am not understanding here.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

karynnj

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Mar-24-06 11:16 AM
Response to Reply #14

17. I know that is true for at least one Republican WWII vet I know

He voted very reluctantly for Clinton in 1992 - liking his platform, but questioning his character. He was offended by the snarky letter sent back when Clinton no longer needed the ROTC position and the way he handled the womanizing complaints by attacking the character of the woman. In 1996, he voted for Dole. (In 2004, his concern was the anti-war stuff - but after reading the full testimony, he was impressed with Kerry's intelligence and saw where he was coming from. He voted for Kerry - not for that reason.)

We learned not to mention the word "Clinton".

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

DU AdBot (1000+ posts)

Tue Apr 30th 2024, 02:31 PM
Response to Original message

Advertisements [?]

Home » Discuss » DU Groups » Democrats » John Kerry Group

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home | Discussion Forums | Journals | Store | Donate

About DU | Contact Us | Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC