2008 Race Rankings: Mind The Gap

Beginning now, we're going to rank both the Democrats and Republicans each week. Look for new GOP rankings in a few days.

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 the old Republican rankings.

1. Hillary Clinton -- The margin between Clinton and Obama is as narrow as it's ever been. She's ahead because there's a plausible scenario for her to win the nomination even if she loses Iowa and New Hampshire; that scenario does not exist for Obama. Still, the tide is moving in the wrong direction for her.

2. Barack Obama -- He's on a roll, but is it too soon? Momentum's a powerful thing, but one has to have it at the right time; Edwards got it a few days too late in '04, or he would have been the nominee. Obama's big test may actually be after New Hampshire, when he could start to get REAL front-runner treatment from the media. For now, he is still getting gee-whiz coverage, to the chagrin of the Clinton camp.

3. John Edwards -- The biggest hurdle in Edwards' way? It's Clinton, not Obama. Edwards and Clinton share more supporters than Edwards and Obama. Edwards is hoping for the blue-collar, older Dem support. That's the heart and soul of Clinton's support.

Continue reading our Democratic race rankings.

Comments

Interestingly, the fact that Clinton is still being ranked as the frontrunner by people like Ambinder neatly demonstrates that Obama has not yet approached the point at which any momentum effect would be exhausted.

And I think that points to one of the inherent problems for Clinton as we enter the actual primary process--I strongly suspect that the press will not stop talking positively about her chances of winning the nomination until she is actually completely beaten. So unlike Bill in 1992 (the lone recent example of someone who lost both Iowa and NH and came back to win the nomination--and notably Bill did not lose both to the same person), it will be virtually impossible for Hillary to defy expectations and claim momentum with anything short of a convincing victory.

Posted by DTM | December 11, 2007 8:56 AM

-----CLINTON SLEEZE FATIGUE WILL INVIGORATE GOP, DISPIRIT DEMOCRATS AND SINK DEMOCRATIC TICKET-----

-----EDWARDS/RICHARDSON TO WIN-----

It is possible that Senator Clinton is the best candidate. However, even though many may like the policies that Senator Clinton proposes, they should also consider her record, just as Senator Clinton insists.
.
The last Clinton Administration, when faced with the fact that protection rackets where assaulting, torturing and murdering people with poison and radiation, chose to avoid its responsibilities to incarcerate the criminals and to protect the citizenry.
.
Instead, they made a deal with the criminal gang stalker protection rackets to leave them alone and to consequently abandon the citizenry.
.
Do we want a President who sells out the citizenry for votes?
.
Do we want a President who sends a "crime does pay" message to society?
.
Would you vote for a President who signed nonaggression deals with the KKKlan or the Nazi party? Gangs that torture with poison and radiation are much like the KKKlan and Nazi Party.
.
We do not need a sellout President. We need a principled leader President.
.
If you are one of the few who do not know what the above refers to, do a web search for “gang stalking” to see the tip of the dirtberg. Please do it before you decide to reply to my post. Here let me make it easy for you: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22gang+stalking%22.
.

Posted by avraam jack | December 11, 2007 9:11 AM

New general election matchup poll today from CNN. I wonder which Dem performs best across the board?

vs Huckabee

Edwards +25
Obama +15
Clinton +10

vs McCain

Edwards +8
Obama 0
Clinton -2

vs Romney

Edwards +22
Obama +13
Clinton +9

vs Giuliani

Edwards +9
Obama +7
Clinton +6

Posted by Petey | December 11, 2007 9:18 AM

Marc --

I don't know if you're in charge of this, but can we *please* get some updated Senate rankings, for chrissakes? The last set of rankings -- from September 26 -- is still musing about who'll win at the VA GOP convention, wondering whether Bob Kerrey will run in Nebraska, and, uh, totally excluding the NM race. I don't often quote Michael Ledeen, but: Faster, please!

Posted by Daniel Munz | December 11, 2007 10:02 AM

I have to agree with the first poster. We will never get a realistic view of HRC by the press who endlessly talks her up.
With her falling in support shows how soft this support is. I have noticed a real effort today to push the positive Hillary and negative Obama we saw all summer. I wonder if the HRC camp has been putting pressure on.
However, nothing annoys democrats more than to have the feeling of being forced. and this could end up to her loss.

Posted by vwcat | December 11, 2007 10:07 AM

bad news for huckabee via drudge:

DEMS HOLD FIRE ON HUCKABEE; SEE 'EASY KILL' IN GENERAL ELECTION

Within the DNC, Huckabee is known as the 'glass jaw -- and they're just waiting to break it'... The last DNC press release critical of Huckabee appeared back on March 2nd... Developing...

Posted by Galt | December 11, 2007 10:30 AM

Petey, I'll ask the question again here. The CNN poll is of registered, not likely, voters. Is it therefore a relevant poll?

Posted by texasdem | December 11, 2007 10:39 AM

"Petey, I'll ask the question again here. The CNN poll is of registered, not likely, voters. Is it therefore a relevant poll?"

General election polling generally doesn't shift from RV to LV numbers until around Labor Day.

Also, unlike primary and caucus polling, the difference between RV and LV numbers in general election polls is very minimal, usually only around one point or so.

So, yes, it's a relevant poll. And it's also well within the vast majority of general election matchup polls showing Edwards outperforming Clinton and Obama.

The only things that make this one especially interesting are that it's the first real poll to include the Huck since he caught fire, and that it shows Edwards beating two of the top four GOP contenders by 20+ points! The last time we won a general election by 20 points, we got Medicare and Civil Rights passed in the next Congress.

Posted by Petey | December 11, 2007 11:09 AM

Petey -

All the poll shows is that "random white guy with southern accent" outperforms "random black guy" and "high-negative woman". I happen to believe that it might turn out that way in the end...but I'm sure you know that this early poll is sillyness (I've followed your other posts and you seem to understand the process).

In addition - Huckabee's name rec is like 30%, right?

Posted by Democrats Against Hillary | December 11, 2007 12:07 PM

there's a plausible scenario for her to win the nomination even if she loses Iowa and New Hampshire

Really --- let's hear it.

Posted by goethean | December 11, 2007 12:09 PM

"All the poll shows is that "random white guy with southern accent" outperforms "random black guy" and "high-negative woman"

I actually think that the Edwards' electability advantage has more to do with his region, his rural background, and his economic populism than it does with his race or gender.

Posted by Petey | December 11, 2007 12:21 PM

Petey -

I'm not going to quibble with any of your points because yes, I agree, Edwards' region, accent, and economic populism would make him a slightly stronger GE candidate.

However - how many voters know anything about Edwards right now, other than his accent? Very few. Regardless of how many polls you point to, it's too early to actually cite those polls as evidence of anything other than a very superficial impression from voters. It's more convincing when you talk about expected future performance.

The problem for Edwards is his lack of money. He'll have enough to run his campaign in swing states, but very little to expand the map (if he can potentially do that, then it takes extra resources...you have to lay the groundwork in new states with tons of money).

Posted by Democrats Against Hillary | December 11, 2007 1:22 PM

"However - how many voters know anything about Edwards right now, other than his accent? Very few."

I actually think his Two Americas economic populism actually has some reasonable penetration, as does his Son of a Millworker roots. He got some decent national exposure in 2004, y'know.

"The problem for Edwards is his lack of money. He'll have enough to run his campaign in swing states, but very little to expand the map"

The greater Kerry effort outspent the greater Bush effort in '04. How'd that work out for us?

Given the amount of 3rd Party Dem money lined up for the general election, I have very few worries that Edwards, or any Democratic nominee, will get swamped financially.

Kerry didn't abandon WV, CO, MO, and VA because he didn't have the resources. He abandoned those states because he wasn't able to compete there due to his region and cultural markers.

Posted by Petey | December 11, 2007 1:32 PM

Of course one of the reasons the head-to-head polling numbers right now aren't very reliable is that the general election campaigns have not yet begun.

To give one simple example, we know from 2004 that the GOP candidate is likely to brand anyone who supported the 2002 AUMF but now criticizes the Iraq War as a "flip-flopper". Edwards has dealt with this issue in the primaries by apologizing profusely, and for the most part his primary rivals have not hit him hard on this issue (in part because most of his rivals are in no better position).

But how would his narrative on this issue go over in the general election campaign when the proverbial gloves are off? (To give just one small example, I would expect Shrum's claims on this issue to be resurrected and highlighted.) The answer, of course, is that we don't really know.

Again, that is just one example. In general, there are obvious reasons why primary campaigns and general election campaigns have very different dynamics, and little reason to expect these hypothetical head-to-head numbers to remain the same.

Posted by DTM | December 11, 2007 1:51 PM

I'd say those rankings are pretty good.

Just to reiterate what I said yesterday, I don't think Obama has to win all of the big early three contests, and potentially could win just one if he stays close in the other two. The race has closed enough to where he and Hillary can both approach them in the traditional sense, which is don't lose too badly so you can hang on.

As I said previously, the 'must win' notion comes from a time when Clinton is 25 points up in national polls. If that lead were to hold into January, Obama would be an 'insurgent' candidate with no margin for error. That doesn't seem to be the case that's developing.

I do agree with the rankings in the general sense that Clinton has more margin for error.

Posted by Paul | December 11, 2007 6:11 PM

if she places 3d in all the early states--plausible--she is done. she has to win one.

Posted by JC | December 12, 2007 12:47 AM

How can you write something like this with a straight face:
"Edwards got it [momentum] a few days too late in '04, or he would have been the nominee."

Or he would have been the nominee?!!?
Whew. That's quite a leap, with nary a single FACT to back it up.

Anyway, imo, Edwards is gone.
He was leading Iowa when this started; he's not anymore. Why not? THAT'S why he won't be winning Iowa. And if he doesn't win Iowa, he doesn't go on.

I don't think it matters who wins Iowa between Obama and Clinton. They will both continue on until they run out of money.
And neither of them will be running out of money, since they are both millions ahead of anyone else, funds-wise.
If Obama wins Iowa, I believe he MUST win NH, or he will lose his luster.
Clinton started third in Iowa; I don't think she has to win it or even come in second. But I think she has to win NH if she loses third in Iowa.

At any rate, my bet is still on Clinton.

Posted by Jan | December 12, 2007 5:53 AM