Interesting changes to the rankings this time around.
For the record, Todd ranks the GOP field as: 1. McCain, 2. Mitt & Rudy (tied), 4. Newt, 5. Sam Brownback, 6. Mike Huckabee, 7. Chuck Hagel, 8. Jim Gilmore, Frank Keating, & Tommy Thompson (tied).
On the Dem side, Todd has the field ranked as: 1. Clinton, 2. Obama, 3. Edwards, 4. Tom Vilsack, 5. Bill Richardson, 6. Biden, Dodd, & Clark (tied), 9. John Kerry.
Some intriguing insight from Todd on the candidates:
-After a rough December that saw increased scrutiny into Romney’s record, we’ve slid him down just a bit into a tie for second. Romney has done an excellent job in lining up key talent and has certainly shown that he belongs in the top tier. But will conservatives who are desperate for a McCain alternative turn up their noses at Romney? It’s possible. There are some Romney fans (i.e. folks who are supportive but aren’t paid advisers) who are concerned that he portrayed himself as too conservative in the last few months, which opened him up to the “flip-flopping” criticism he’s received over the last few weeks.
-As for Giuliani, “America’s Mayor” is clearly more serious about running than we’ve believed. The hiring of Republican National Committee ace Mike DuHaime sent that message to official Washington loud and clear. But take a look at the coverage Giuliani’s “stolen” campaign plan received from the New York City press corps. That’s the type of scrutiny Giuliani has to be prepared for, and that McCain will never receive.
-Looking for a dark horse to bet on in the Iowa caucuses? Then look no further than former House Speaker Newt Gingrich of Georgia. The conservative vacuum among the top three front-runners means someone is going to emerge, right?
-Thanks in part to the lack of attention on outgoing Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback’s bandwagon appears to be one worth jumping on for social conservatives. His schtick is tailor-made for the Iowa caucuses…
-For someone with such potential [Gov. Mike Huckabee], he’s taking his sweet time putting together a team.
-The best thing to happen to Clinton may be the rise of Obama, because for the time being, the glare is off of her while she readies herself for a run. Sure, she’ll get incredible scrutiny, but it will be nowhere near the scrutiny she’d be getting if Obama wasn’t sharing the “gee whiz” stage right now. Still, the Obama buzz ought to scare her for this reason: There’s clearly a hunger (be it in the media, the Democratic establishment or even among actual voters) for an alternative to Clinton.
-As for whether Obama is running, it’s hard to imagine that he won’t at this point. He’s doing too many of the little things now that indicate he’s running (including sending “thank-you” postcards to New Hampshire Democrats late last month). In fact, if Obama backed out now, he’d probably lose enough credibility that his stock would never be the same. Think former New York Gov. Mario Cuomo (D) in ’92. So, count Obama as a candidate.
-[Mark] Warner: Lots of chatter that he’s getting cold feet about his cold feet.
Except for our difference of opinion on Rudy’s status in the race, I agree with much of Mr. Todd ‘s analysis.
I found the rumor regarding Mark Warner’s remorse to be quite interesting. There are four Dems that scare me in a general election-Clinton, Warner, Bayh, and Richardson. Warner and Bayh are already out, and Todd noted in this article that Richardson may soon follow.
That leaves only HRC and a bunch of other candidates who will go a long way towards perpetuating the Red State/Blue State template
January 4th, 2007 at 1:54 pm
I’m pleasantly surprised that Todd is going to update the ’08 ranking weekly. That should give us a very comprehensive look at how the field is shaping up throughout the year.
Todd also makes a really interesting point about the tone of the media’s (slightly negative and condescending) coverage of Rudy’s leaked plan compared to the coverage that McCain usually gets even among those who disagree with him. Whether this will effect the race once McCain, Rudy and Romney openly start brawling remains to be seen.
January 4th, 2007 at 8:05 pm
Ranking Huckabee below Brownback and Gingrich is premature.
January 4th, 2007 at 8:12 pm
Peter,
Huckabee spent all of last year doing…nothing really. He hasn’t put together any sort of organization, barely has any money raised for an exploratory committee and has done nothing to get more national exposure.
January 4th, 2007 at 9:38 pm
He hasn’t even left office yet…just wait until then.
January 4th, 2007 at 9:47 pm
Placing Romney even with Rudy is laughable, and probably shows that he is buying into the “Rudy will fail as soon as they know what he believe” mantra that has yet to be supported by any evidence.
January 4th, 2007 at 10:17 pm
Huckabee is a 10 year governor, with no possible future election prospects within Arkansas. About as clear of a lame duck as you’ll find. Unlike someone like Romney who had to contemplate possibly running for re-election, Huckabee has been essentially free to campaign for more then 2 years. And. He’s done. Nothing. Either he’s not terribly serious about running, or he’s a woefully inept campaigner. Either way, it doesn’t bode well for him. The fact that a Massachusetts governor has had more sucess than a former Baptist minister at positioning himself as the “conservative” is telling.
January 5th, 2007 at 9:17 am
I can’t speak for the country, but here in Iowa Romney
& McCain presently have the best organization in place.
http://www.iowansforromney.com
January 5th, 2007 at 10:35 am
Notice that Huckabee actually kept his promise to the people and stayed in his state and governed unlike a certain other governor…
January 5th, 2007 at 11:37 am
Also, there was no contemplating for Romney, because unlike Huckabee Romney would have lost
re-election without a doubt. Had Huckabee been able to run again he would have won hands down.
I think in hte next two weeks you will see Huckabee everywhere. He is a very skilled campaigner and
people are going to take notice. Romney has tried to position himself as the conservative choice but there aren’t many people buying it. Besides, they are buying their support right now, when htey have to get it for free they might have a harder time.
January 5th, 2007 at 3:43 pm
Romney would have won re-election had he not spent much of his time traveling to other states. Even with his more conservative shift. The absentee governor schtick is a very sort subject for people in Massachusetts, with every Republican governor in the last 16 years fleeing at some point or another. But in late 2004, Romney had approval ratings near 60%. He was thrashing every potential Democrat in polls. Only after it became clear he intended to seek the presidency did his approval ratings drop.
January 5th, 2007 at 9:53 pm
If that is how you see it, he was not running again because he was going to lose. He won’t carry his home state in the election if he is the nominee. Maybe not even in the primaries. But we will see.
January 6th, 2007 at 10:41 pm
Romney fixed the deficits and got Massachusetts a 1B surplus that the liberals are fighting to spend. He worked out a statewide national health care plan with liberals in state congress that everyone can afford *without* raising any taxes. He quickly fixed all the major problems in Massachusetts and has been a champion for immigration reform and traditional marriage. I can’t think of any candidate which has accomplished so much in so little time.