2008 Race Rankings: The Republicans

Each week, NBC News political director Chuck "Chuck" Todd and I present our rankings on the likely order of finish for the presidential candidates.

There's still no number one in our rankings. No one deserves the front-runner label, and our top three all have a plausible chance at the nomination. The ramifications of the John McCain campaign meltdown might not be evident for a while. In fact, we wouldn't be surprised, after a few weeks, to see his numbers bump up a little in New Hampshire.

These rankings are ordered by likelihood of winning the Republican primary and are based on a number of factors, including organization, money, buzz and polling. Click here for Democratic rankings.

1. No One -- Blank (for now).

2. (tie) Rudy Giuliani -- The day McCain's brain trust resigned, Giuliani announced the addition of Southwest Iowa field staffers. He's finally staffing up, finally focusing on endorsements in the early states, and is catching up to Romney on the organization front in some of the bigger Feb. 5 states. One sign that the campaign isn't adept at or interested in building crowds at the moment: Elizabeth Edwards at one point outdrew him in New Hampshire last week. But with terrorism front and center this summer, though, Giuliani has a natural message hook.

3. (tie) Mitt Romney -- That's some burn rate, mister! Romney really needs Fred Thompson to start campaigning in the early primary states, or else face the risk that the other top-tier candidates will abandon them entirely and let Romney win them easily. His victories will matter only if they're real victories over a competitive field in January. Note his campaign's greater use of Ann Romney as a not-so subtle contrast with Judith Nathan and Jeri Thompson. Spending aside, this campaign is about as technically competent as a campaign can be, and even the skeptical press corps is beginning to view Romney as a plausible nominee.


3. Fred Thompson -- Last Ranking: 2 -- The media and the conservative elite are running out of patience. Just get in already -- or announce an exact date. McCain's seeming collapse is an opportunity to strike now; waiting could bring regrets. A campaign cannot run on fumes, nor can it run on a weekly Sean Hannity armpit snuggle. The longer Thompson waits, the more likely the story becomes the waiting rather than the candidate.

Continue reading our race rankings.

Comments

I'm voting for Ron Paul.

Posted by crxvfr | July 19, 2007 3:44 PM

If the media wasn't so blatantly biased in favor of certain candidates with tons of special interest money and corruption, Congressman Ron Paul would be the clear front-runner. Look at his record! Nobody can find any dirt on this guy and his voting record is absolutely consistent! He has never, ever been bought out and he even returns a portion of his salary back to the US Treasury every single year. Besides, who's a friend of the IRS and the income tax? Ron Paul wants to eventually abolish the two. I just could go on and on about his record. Imagine an actual President of the United States in the White House who's actually corrupt free and who keeps his oath to defend the Constitution! STOP DREAMING! This man is for REAL!

Posted by Ken | July 19, 2007 3:46 PM

Mitt is not corruptalbe. Look at his family. Look at his history. Look at his success.

I will only vote for Ron Paul if:
He's VP to Romney

Posted by zune | July 19, 2007 4:03 PM

I will be voting for Ron Paul!!

Posted by American | July 19, 2007 4:12 PM

WHERE IS RON PAUL?!?!?!?!

Go back to your male prostitutes you gay, fascists, republican reporters. Stupid mainstream media.

Posted by Hunter S Thompson | July 19, 2007 4:16 PM

The media and the conservative elite are running out of patience. Just get in already -- or announce an exact date.

Why? I can see why potential Thompson donors would want a firm answer, but why would the media care? The primaries are still half a year away - what's the rush?

Posted by Gabriel | July 19, 2007 4:20 PM

Ron Paul may be a great guy, but if he can't seem to overcome the obstacles of the media and create a viable campaign, just how effective would he be as President of the United States...? I'm honest and corruption free too, but I don't have the skills to run an entire country. What I said for Ron Paul also goes for McCain.

Mitt Romney may be spending a great deal, but don't believe for a minute that this is not well thought out. He needs to get traction NOW, not later, and spending money later may not be an option.

Posted by Helen | July 19, 2007 6:20 PM

In the post, you have Mitt's number wrong. It should be 2.

Posted by Alex F | July 19, 2007 8:59 PM

We can count on him, just look at his other choices-
Penn campaign chairman busted for bribery
La campaign chairman confesses to prostitution
SC campaign chairman arrested for distrib cocaine
His close friend, biz partner, and ex-NYC police chief is doing time for public corruption

And on the issues, wow, Rudy is the conservative's conservative.

Anti-trad family, pro-abortion, disposable wives, favors special legal status for gays

Anti-soveriegnty, pro-amnesty, pro-Can-Am-Mex merger, member of cartel that is seizing 100s of thousands of sq miles of land for the NAFTA super tollway that is to be owned by a foreign (Spanish) corp called Cintas.

Foreign policy experience-- zilch.

No doubt he will use all of the skills he has shown to pick good conservative judges. No doubt.

Posted by hadrianna | July 19, 2007 11:55 PM

hadrianna, but Rudy hates, hates, hates liberals and promises to kick their asses. That has to count for something in the mind of a Republican voter.

Posted by Tyro | July 20, 2007 12:35 AM

Romney is by far the best candidate. He is the legitimate qualified choice. Lucid leadership, adept communication, critical thinking, education, values. Mitt will be an outstanding president.

Ron Paul is a great guy - and although may not have the punch to orchestrate a presidential organization, I hope he has a place in the Romney administration.

Posted by Bryan | July 20, 2007 12:40 AM

Romney is by far the best candidate. He is the legitimate qualified choice

Talk like this is a stark reminder at how weak the Republican candidates are.

But I think we're missing the most important thing that Marc hasn't told us about-- does the press corps like Romney or do they hate him? Which candidate does the press most want to have a beer with? Marc, don't be shy-- tell us!

Posted by Tyro | July 20, 2007 12:48 AM

RON PAUL!! RON PAUL!!
Okay, now that I've gotten that out of my system, let's talk about the GOP presidential race.

Rudy Giuliani-impressive resume as mayor of New York City. Cracked down on crime, cleaned up Times Square by eliminating all of the porn peddlers, and demonstrated unbelievable courage on 9/11.
Socially liberal positions would better suit him to be an inevitable Democrat nominee for president.

Fred Thompson-articulate, makes conservative positions seem commonsense in a folksy manner. Undistinguished Senator from Tennessee-the Ronald Reagan metaphors are a stretch. The I'm-soon-to-be-GOP-candidate shtick is getting old quick.

Mitt Romney-executive experience in business, Olympics, and state government. Took practical, moderate positions to get elected in bluest of blue Massachusetts. Articulate and leading in Iowa and New Hampshire. Some conservatives skeptical about his check-the-conservative-coalition box campaign strategy.

All of the Above-better than the 'I have no plan whatsoever' Democratic field who will say anything to get elected and impose government-run 'universal healthcare'. To boot, their foreign policy proposes nothing except retreat, defeat, and sends a strong message of American weakness in a region of the world, the Middle East, where weakness is not provocative, but deadly.

Posted by Steve | July 20, 2007 12:50 AM

If the media wasn't so blatantly biased in favor of certain candidates with tons of special interest money and corruption, Congressman Ron Paul would be the clear front-runner.

Yes, it's all the media's fault. The meanies. And anyone who is popular must be corrupt, right?

Or is it that Ron Paul simply hasn't been able to develop and execute a strategy to get noticed?

Could it be that some of his ideas don't hold a wide appeal?

I applaud the man for showing character. But he's not the only one in the race who demonstrates it.

In the end, a politician has to be able to get his message out. Romney did NOT start this race as a front-runner. But his ability to execute AND his message has caught the attention of the media and many honest, upstanding citizens.

Talk and chest-thumping is cheap. One of the things I want in a leader is the ability to produce results. Romney has done that in his campaign. Ron Paul, so far, has not.

Posted by J Brown | July 20, 2007 4:42 AM

I agree with Bryan, with respect to Ron Paul. Right now its all fundraising and organization, and Ron Paul really isn't doing well at either.

He's got some cash saved up because he hasn't spent any; because he's not building any organization. Its a strategy that has me scratching my head. I'd like to see Paul do well, because I agree with most of the things I've heard him say. But he doesn't seem to really be running - excited supporters on these blogs aside.

He's going to need to bring in more than a couple million a quarter. And he's going to have to start spending on local offices with full time staffs. Otherwise, he won't get any further than he did when running for the Libertarian Party.

Actually, this looks a lot like an LP campaign - no structure, no one really doing the inside campaign work; just a candidate who looks for media venues that will have him, and a handful of supporters who don't know how to do anything other than putting up a few road signs.

Posted by PLM | July 20, 2007 8:30 AM

I just LOVE how Ron Paul can be injected into any conversation! Very entertaining.

Posted by Travis | July 20, 2007 10:19 AM

That's an interesting point that Giuliani and Thompson feel compelled to hide their wives. Come to think of it, I haven't seen McCain's wife around much either. It sounds like they have the true trophy wife--looks nice on a shelf at home, fun to brag about at a cocktail party, but can't really do much for you. How these guys are front-runners in the family values party is beyond me. Any conservative that supports Thompson, McCain, or Giuliani owes an apology for every nasty remark they made about Bill Clinton. Sure he cheated, but at least he stayed married rather than running off with some 20 year old bimbo. If you're into values, I'm not sure these three offer any more than the democrats. At least the democrats don't pretend to be something they're not.

Posted by DCJO | July 20, 2007 11:02 AM

I am a democrat and I made a firm decision after studing and investigating backgrounds and experiences of all the men that are running for Pres. I came to a realization that there is noone that is capable and good enough to lead this great nation. The only candidate that is showing willingness and is clean and worthy of my Trust is Mr Romney. I have great feeling that he will be the answer to America's ongoing problems. I have changed my vote so that I can vote for Romney. He is not afraid of the truth and not afraid of doing the right thing. He walks the walk and talks the talk. He is the rightful President for the United States. I am sorry to say that the rest of the running candidates are not qualified. Giuliani the crooks and fornicator. What does that teaches the world about our morals. He left his wife for a much younger woman. Then I laugh so hard that the Democrats is pretty much allowing Hillary Clinton to take the lead, over my dead body she is going to be my president.

Posted by JPat | July 20, 2007 1:15 PM

I am getting very tired waiting for Fred Thompson to enter the GOP race for the presidency. Maybe Fred should wait until after the 2080 elections.

Anyway, wake me up when he finally enters the race. The suspense is putting me to sleep.

Posted by Denny | July 21, 2007 5:48 PM

Why don't we elect a president based upon his record? If we did that, Ron Paul separates from the pack by a long shot. Instead, we, the American people, are content to let the media dictate our candidates to us. Forget the popular media, vote experience and a proven record. Also, let's stopping voting pragmatically based on the lesser of evils and vote based on who really is the best candidate. Maybe then our voice will be our own and not just a tool in the hand of the elite media.

Posted by BW | July 22, 2007 2:10 AM