« Alan Keyes For President? | Main | News: AFL-CIO To Release Unions; No Single Endorsement »

2008 Democratic Race Rankings

08 Aug 2007 09:55 am

NBC News political director Chuck Todd and I present our final Democratic rankings for August.

Hillary Rodham Clinton's command of the field is holding even as Barack Obama confronts her worldview and John Edwards gets angrier and angrier. There are signs, however, that some flux is right around the corner.

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

Number 1 -- Hillary Clinton -- They'll never admit that their dust-up with Obama over meeting with rogue leaders was a minor setback. That said, a day doesn't go by that she doesn't look like a stronger general election candidate, mainly because of how she's always got her eye on the general when answering debate questions like the one in question. No member of the C.W. chattering class believed she'd be this strong in general election matchups this early in the process. She seems more unbeatable every day, which is why you should expect both Obama and Edwards to stop mincing words and take near-daily shots at the front-runner. She's on such a roll right now, one can't help but wonder if she's peaking too soon. Almanac Profile

2. Barack Obama -- The Clinton folks are convinced that the Obama campaign knows he made two gaffes in the last two weeks, but because they feared the "inexperienced" tag might take hold, they had no choice but to stand their ground based on what he said. We'll never know who's right, but the Obama camp does deserve credit for not being shy about taking on the Georgetown set on issues of foreign affairs. Six months ago, we thought Obama was dying to win the Georgetown primary; now, clearly, he doesn't care. And the recent Post-ABC poll showing him tied for the lead in Iowa shows that the campaign's early TV advertising may be having a desired effect.

3. John Edwards -- Meet Mr. Angry! He's not going to take it any more! Edwards gets better every day in the role of angry populist, but we can't help but wonder if eventually his "no more Mr. nice guy" routine is going to rub Iowa voters the wrong way. Edwards' strength in '04 was that everyone seemed to like the guy. Usually, voters don't like angry populists; they may respect them, but like? Not usually. Still, Edwards needs to keep the hot rhetoric up if only to make sure the press doesn't get too carried away with Clinton v. Obama. The real loser out of the Clinton-Obama spatwas Edwards. It showed how easily he could be ignored.

Continue reading our race rankings.

Comments (17)

Mark writes about Hillary:

"She's on such a roll right now, one can't help but wonder if she's peaking too soon."

Great work, up is down, black is white. The ghost of The Note, where all news that's worth commenting on emminates from Drudge, says Hillary is peaking too soon. Does anyone take you seriously anymore?

People like Marc and Chuck Todd are inside the beltway crowd whose only intent is to come up with propoganda against people like Obama and Edwards.

Marc, Chuck, why are you starting a new theme about Edwards. Looks like you guys are tired about the haircut story, thats all. Give me one example where you gave similar titles to republican candidates.
Did you ever refer to Romney as Mr. Flipflopper?
Did you ever refer to McCain as Mr. OutOfTouch?
Did you ever refer to Giuliani as Mr. 9/11-Exploiter?
Did you ever refer to Fred as Mr. Lobbyist.

So Marc & Chuck, please stop your republican propoganda.

I believe that real people [not us political blogger and mainstream types] start to like John Edwards more and more as they hear him speaking directly to their concerns. At last night's debate, while Senator Biden blathered out a random retort about foreign policy and completely forgot a widow had just asked him a policy question about needed safety in the profession that took her husband's life too soon, John Edwards led a standing ovation for the humble man who stood before him with tears in his eyes asking "What's wrong with America?" If a candidate isn't seriously and closely paying attention to the people's concerns and if the candidate isn't showing that they're upset about what's wrong with America, I don't think the candidate is reaching those who need to be reached and those who so desperately want to be heard.

I’m about as compelled by pundit/analyst rankings as I am by the annual preseason predictions of who’s going to win the World Series. They’re both irrelevant, but the cool thing about elections versus sports is the fans actually get to pick who wins. You guys would actually be doing something meaningful if you were to report to us on issues and help us see through the propaganda. But no, you’d rather talk about how things feel and seem, haircuts, little tiffs in debates, and other minutiae. Way to go.

Drudge rules their world and the wingnuts rule Drudge. If you notice, Mark never comments on this uncomfortable fact. Mark and his pals at The Note never missed an opportunity to distribute Republican spin. It worked great when Bush was at 70% approval ratings. Unfortunately for them, the public isn't fooled by rhetoric and scare tactics anymore. Turns out incompetence and hubris carry a price in lost credibility, and not just for Bush and the Republicans.

you guys need to get off the campaign trail.

72% of americans DO NOT BELIEVE LOBBYISTS WORK FOR THEM..

that's a lead weight for Hillary

This is incorrect:

"Hillary Rodham Clinton's command of the field is holding even as Barack Obama confronts her worldview and John Edwards gets angrier and angrier."

There is no evidence that this is true.

All of the recent "NATIONAL" polls that showed her lead growing were performed before and released AFTER anyone actually started trying to highlight differences between her.

We don't yet know what the effects of her getting booed by informed bloggers at YearlyKos, and informed-about-who-has-stood-with-them union members at the AFL-CIO forum will do to her yet.

Clearly, she performs better in setting where people don't know a whole lot about her, and she can just play to an image.

If people know about her record, like the Unions do with respect to being a free trader who big business loves, and the bloggers, who research the candidates' records and know all about her, she gets a more tepid response, gets boos, and gets defensive and yells.

We don't yet know what the effect is, but I predict if what happened over the last two weeks continues (her being booed and exposed), her numbers will start dropping.

If you want to make an anti-Obama comment, this is not the place.

I must be watching a completely different John Edwards. I certainly haven't noticed any anger there.

You guys seem to be watching the national polls, not the early state polls, which is just about the dumbest mistake anyone can make in primary politics.

I mean, Giuliani is still in the lead for the GOP, despite Mitt passing him in Iowa and New Hampshire? Gimme a break. That's just crazy talk.

It's going to be Mitt, Fred, and possibly one other candidate who can pull himself up into third (or hang onto, if it's Giuliani).

Rasmussen today announced its daily national tracking poll has seen significant movement for Obama in the past four days. They had her up by 20 and now its down to 11 points - 38-27.

And you know what, it doesn't matter. Its early August! I'm losing more and more respect more media political "experts" who want me to look at only one set of polls versus another, and who are trying to call the race five months before the Iowa Caucus. It just sounds nutty.

Yeah Paul, and Rasmussen also shows John Edwards as the best Democrat against the Republicans, which is what really matters, not some stupid "NATIONAL" Democratic polls which are basically popularity contests influenced by name recognition.

According to Rasmussen, John Edwards has the highest favorability and lowest unfavorability ratings of the Democrats, and does much better against Republicans than Clinton and Obama.

You forgot to mention that part.

Sorry OEST, lol. Didn't mean to shun Edwards. The numbers I saw were just the Democratic and Republican tracking polls - I didn't look at the match-ups nor the favorable/unfavorable numbers.

I've heard from Clinton supporters that her negatives aren't at 48 anymore, as they try to make an argument she is electable. What does Rasmussen say?

Hm... it looks like the intrade prediction markets seem to mostly agree with your rankings, although they also toss in a few extras like Gore and Wesley Clark.

http://www.intrade.com/jsp/intrade/contractSearch/searchPageBuilder.jsp?z=1186614396062&grpID=95

Mr Banjo Do You Own This Web Site,Screw You And Obama Bin Laden

hgbynl yndmtu dniqlu rzlgqnd fqtl waljmdtp mcbtpfr

In england John Edwards is mostly ignored by the media but I think he's the man of the future peace

pacifier noncock pigweed berger susurrate convolutely transubstantiative peremptorily
http://fish4.co.uk/homes/index.html >Fish4Homes
http://www.funtigo.com/