ABC News 2008 Presidential Invisible Primary Ratings, Vol. 1

[mzmolly]

"A Look at the Chances Various Republicans and Democrats Have at Winning Their Party's Nomination" ... See HERE

ABC Vote 2008: Invisible Primary Ratings:

(The closer the rating is to 1.0, the better chance of securing the nomination - according to ABC.)

~ REPUGLICANS ~

Potential Candidates
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 ~

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

Personally think it's too soon to tell, but I like to see the analysis.
I also think if Gore ran he'd blow every other Dem out of the water?

[mattclearing]

1. Richardson and Biden before Feingold? What a joke.

The Note people are such clowns.

[mzmolly]

4. I agree. I don't think their methods are very sound.

Seems it's coming down to money/name recognition.

[mattclearing]

5. Looking a little closer, they have Feingold at the top of the netroots

category, which is correct.

But IIRC, that was enough to take Howard Dean to third place in the final sweepstakes, wasn't it?

Feingold should be up a bit higher.

[1932]

9. Have you read Freakonomics? It argues that money is a product of

candidate appeal. People don't give money to candidates who don't have a good chance of winning.

[underpants]

2. DAMMIT , didn't make the list again

Maybe better luck for me in 2012

[Buck Rabbit]

7. I was going to vote for you ...

but I saw a thread title that drew me into to make a smart ass comment, only to find you had already posted it.

Therefore I am done with underpants and am now a Feingold supporter.

[underpants]

8. Frickin fairweather Rabbit

:grr:

:hi::bounce:

[DanCa]

3. Wes Clark should be in the top five at least. (nt)

[Rowdyboy]

6. Move Feingold and Clark to 3rd and 4th, with Warner still 5th.....

and the rest stay the same.

The very idea of having Tom Vilsack and Joe-mentum Biden ahead of Feingold and Clark is idiotic.

[mrgorth]

10. It had better scare the fuck out of everyone

that we are being set up for a Hillary/McCain showdown. She cannot beat him. Period.

[mzmolly]

12. She wont get the nomination. And, I don't think he will either.

IMHO. :hi:

[k_jerome]

29. why?nt

[Uncle Joe]

11. My own Invisible MSM Rating gives

the owner and or CEO of ABC news and or the owner CEO of the corporation that owns them a 1.0 in hoping we get a Clinton/Mccain matchup, and a 1.0 in manipulating the American People's opinion along those ends.

[JABBS]

13. the strongest ticket

is edwards-warner. repeats the successful 1992 strategy.

Hillary can't win. Feingold can't win.

You still need someone who can have broad appeal. Edwards and Warner would appeal to most on the left, but would capture fed-up Republicans (not conservatives), too. And they'd have a chance at winning key border states that Kerry-Edwards didn't win, such as WV, VA, NC, LA (if they don't vote Democrat, I'll be shocked) and Florida.

Edwards' rich-poor divide should play well in industrial states like Ohio and Pennsylvania, too.

[FrenchieCat]

14. So we will once again concede National Security to the GOP?

By running a pair that have no experience with Foreign policy.....after Bush has just said that the "Next" President will have to clean his Iraq/Iran/N. Korea shit up...and that Foreign policy is all that is being discussed since quite some time now?

Your pairing sounds like "fools" Strategery if you ask me.

[Tom Rinaldo]

15. I disagree (respectfully of course)

I am bracing for the reality of intra Democratic competition that naturally be upon us after the 06 elections, and these discussions will inevitably become more pointed then, but shouldn't until then. However neither Edwards or Warner are identified with opposition to the Iraq War before it started, and neither is identified with a detailed plan to end the American presence inside of Iraq now. That will keep this ticket from "appealing to most on the left", which isn't to say that most on the left won't vote for them, but some will defect, and others will sit on their hands relatively speaking.

I think a Clark-Feingold ticket would be strongest personally. I think Feingold would have some trouble getting elected at the top of the ticket but would add strength and character to the ticket as VP, plus deepen enthusiasm on the left for it. And Feingold is not a classic left candidate. He voted to confirm Roberts, and he was also the only Democrat to side with the Republicans in the Senate on one important vote related to the Clinton impeachment, so I think Feingold can appeal to Independents.

Of all Democrats, Clark reassures the most Americans that he is fully capable of protecting America's national security, and I think that will still be a big concern to many in 2008. Clark can not be typecast as a Northern Liberal, though his positions are Liberal, and he comes from a Southern swing state and is identified with a universally recognized all american institution, our military. I think that gives this ticket strong appeal with fed up Republicans and Independents and in key border states.

[JABBS]

17. governors

Bush
Clinton
Reagan
Carter

none of them had foreign policy experience before becoming president.

To paraphrase Mike Dukakis from during the 1988 race, the 2008 race is going to be about "competence."

Edwards is likeable and articulate, and has good name recognition from 2004. And he knows the ropes now, so he won't make some of the mistakes he made last time. Warner is a fiscally responsible governor with a good rep from both parties, in a swing state.

I'm telling you, that ticket can beat any of the crap tickets the GOP will cobble together in 2008. I think the only republican with a chance is McCain, but he may not make it out of the primaries.

[Tom Rinaldo]

21. I think they are both good Democrats

I will work for them individually or together if one or both make our ticket. That is the first and most important point I want to make. But as to preferences and why, they are not my first choice for a ticket. For one thing, unlike Edwards, neither of the four men you list above was a Senator in the last political position that they held prior to becoming President. In fact none of them were ever a senator period. That should say something. Although Edwards only had one term in the Senate that is still his political background, that and a "failed run" (in quotes because of Ohio/Diebold etc. etc.) to become VP in 2004. Edwards has a Senate record that Republicans can mine, none of the four men you listed above did. I don't disagree with any of the points that you make above about Edwards, by the way, they are all true and they are all still advantageous to him, with the possible exception that some (rightly or wrongly) expected Edwards to make a more dramatic impression in the 2004 race.

Now it's true that Warner, like Bush, Clinton, Reagan, and Carter, was never a Senator, but the "tactical advantage" of that is less significant in the VP slot. I agree with the positives that you list for Warner also by the way. But I think the fact that George W. Bush was the most recent of the four men you listed who got "elected" changes everything that came before his "election" and "reelection". Bush was a one term Governor with no foreign policy experience and he has been an absolute disaster of a President in the area of International relations and national security, and that is becoming increasingly obvious to more and more people all of the time. I think Bush poisoned that well and American will hesitate to drink from it again so soon after the bitter taste Bush leaves with them.

But that's just my opinion.

[FrenchieCat]

26. For you to offer up Bush, Clinton, Reagan and Carter as examples

Of why Edwards or Warner should be on a 2008 ticket is ridiculous.

Clinton has hamstrung in the specific area of the Pentagon (waging the dog means anything to you?) because he had no prior experience and was called a "draft Dodger...AND there was no war or occupation going on at the time that he ran and won. His biggest mistake was not intervening in Rwanda (due to his fear of agressive Foreign Policy reproach by his GOP opponents); a mistake costing 800,000 lives (so I'm not that impressed).

Reagan was elected due to his strong persona some of which included the fact that he was known as "The Gipper". Reagan won over Carter, the incumbent precicely in reference to a Foreign policy issue raging at the time(American Hostages in Iran). Reagan won because of the perception that Carter was even weaker than Reagan (failed Hostage Rescue attempt) and promising that the Hostages would be released when he became President...which they were the day he was ignaugurated. He later went on to get intwined in the Iran/Contra scandal, and although he took credit for ending the Cold War, most know better than that. (so I wasn't impressed).

Carter was hamstrung as well.....although he did well in the Middle East. But he was not a "strong" leader.....much of that due to his inexperience and therefore lack of confidence in respect to public opinion.

Bush? Please, let's just not use him as an example......cause his shortcoming are really just sooooo obvious.

So after 9/11, the Iraq War and what Bush, the inexperience Governor, has done to this nation and the world.....for you to cite outdated examples to make a point about Democrats lining up behind an inexperience team is ridiculous.

Both men, if they chose to run should want to select a VP that would ADD to their capabililities. Warner and Edwards are identical in their major strong suites; economic issues.

[mzmolly]

18. Al Gore is the strongest ticket IMHO. It doesn't matter much who

his running mate is, Gore/Clark? Gore/Edwards? Gore/Warner? Gore/Feingold? ........

[Renew Deal]

20. Then wouldn't it have to be Warner-Edwards?

To repeat 1992? And it would help if Edwards was still in office.

[xxqqqzme]

27. that's a great ticket if you're in love w/

the dlc!

[Ignacio Upton]

16. Biden and Daschle have NO chance

Clark should be ranked a lot higher. Feingold is leading in Daily Kos polls, and has eclipsed Clark as netroots favorite (mostly because he's been in the news a lot fighting for are values against GOP.)

[Renew Deal]

19. I'm surprised Edwards would be rated so high.

He's got nothing going on and will be out of office for almost 4 years by the election. He's all looks.

[wisteria]

25. I was wondering that too. Must be that invisible buzz.

Or perhaps a weaker primary opponent for Senator Clinton. That way she doesn't exhaust all her money and she can save her real fight for the general election.

[IA_Seth]

22. Clark?

They have Clark listed behind Biden, Richardson, Bayh, and Vilsack?!

Just to tackle one of those ridiculous assumptions...Vilsack. He doesn't even have his own state locked down (see the Iowa Forum), let alone the rest of the country. He has no charisma, a history of corporate welfare programs, and doesn't inspire any true progressives because of his DLC chairmanship.

Clark has consistently placed high in every online poll, which while unscientific, says a lot about his support.

This report is bullshtein, in my ever so humble opinion, of course.

[DrGonzoLives]

23. Gee

The top four Democrats on that list are the four with the most media coverage in the past year.

Gee, what are the odds? :eyes:

Honestly, polls put out before anyone can even campaign are a waste of time, and only serve to advance the media's agenda of getting to cover a Clinton again instead of actually having to work for their paychecks.

[wisteria]

24. I'll take this poll for what it is worth- nothing. Conjcture and

speculation are all this amounts to. I suppose they have to keep busy and earn a living in between elections.

[k_jerome]

28. go Hillary! nt.