Gala Christmas edition of the WinChoice Presidential Winnability Index

As we all settle down for what I hope will be a peaceful holiday season, a few dozen presidential candidates have visions of holding the most powerful elected on earth dancing through their heads. Some of their dreams are so real they could reach out and touch them. Some of their dreams are so delusional that probably they should be committed. But only one of them will get have attained their dream come Christmas morning 2008.

Well, first off, let's do a little housekeeping. Condoleeza Rice is never going to run for president. I know, she'd make a swell one, and there's tons of people out there who wanted to see her run, but it's never going to happen. Once the most potent candidate the GOP could have run, she's fatally compromised by the Iraq war, North Korea's big F you to the world with their nuclear test (incidentally also one of the main reasons the GOP lost congress) and the continuing possibility that Iran will soon join the nuclear powers. Add to this the rise of NeoCzarist Russia, the uncontrolled collapse of Mexico and the loss of Latin America to far lefters, and it's hard to argue that America is in a better position in 2006 than we were in 2004. If Condoleeza Rice ran, not only would she have to defend her asexuality and her libertarian domestic policy beliefs, she would be crucified for the Bush administration's foreign policy record. Plus, the talk I heard in 2005 about her doth protesting too much has completely dried up. She's done, she will never run. So long Condi, I would have voted for you.

If I haven't heard some squeaks from the camps of a couple of my other GOP "might runs" by the end of January, I will probably remove them as well.

On the Democrat side, Evan Bayh wisely chose to end his run. He's not the last Democratic senator who will pull out before spring folks. Dem presidential hopes radiate from the Senate, but it won't be some loser also ran, also won or bumble mouth plagiarizer who will carry the banner in 2008.

Bad news for the GOP - more and more hopeless ego trips are jumping in to cloud the waters and dilute the effect of GOP hope, enthusiasm and campaign donations.

From Virginia, the well-connected but ultimately doomed Jim Gilmore is musing about running. Do your party a favor Jim, and keep on musing. Just about any of the Democrats poised to take the nominaton could beat you, pretty much without campaigning.

Oklahoma offers Frank Keating, also thinking of running. Keating would be a good president I think, and I also think one of these days America will have an Oklahoman president. But it won't be Keating. He's just got too much baggage, inclduing getting sucker-punched by Bush in 2000. I don't think he could ever win, certainly not against a juggernaut like Barack Obama.

As to some Democratic contenders who actually have a chance, I'm nudging Obama down just a hair in response to the thus-far extremely weak anti-Obama backlash attempt, which I understand has been almost completely orchestrated by the Clinton family and their media creatures. Don't worry Democrat true believers - Obama's middle name won't keep him out of the White House.

Hillary gets bumped down because of some polls, both public and internal, that I understand all the insiders are buzzing about. These polls show her losing to virtually any of the most-mentioned GOP contenders and has caused a real crisis of support among Democratic fundraisers and insiders. I have said for a long time I think Hillary is a lot weaker than she looks, but I do think she would beat Giuliani or McCain. Romney could take her, at least if the election were held next week. Ironically, I understand some of the internal polls show her losing to McCain but beating Romney. Trust WinChoice, not polls. Unfortunately, polls make the political world go around.

Finally, John Edwards is doing very well in a number of polls and is generating some real interest. I would be astonished if he ended up president, but who knows. Certainly it was a big mistake for the dems to not nominate him in 2004.

Well, it's almost time for me to wrap up here and go wrap up my daughter's Christmas presents. But you owe it to yourself to absorb some of the interesting ideas in this post at Political Insider. Electability passe? Friends, it always has been. Most "electable" candidates lose. Just ask Bill Clinton or some of the great candidates and elected officials that sadly lost in Nov. 2006. The last think the blind mass-mind of the voting body worries about is electability when they cast their ballot. Usually most of them are voting against someone, not for anyone.

With that, Merry Christmas and happy New Year!


DEMS

Barack Obama (IL) 99 (-1)
Wes Clark (AR) 89
Hillary Clinton (NY) 55 (-1)
John Edwards (NC) 55 (+1)
Bill Richardson (NM) 48
Tom Vilsack (IA) 45
John Murtha (PA) 33
Al Gore (TN) 24
Joe Biden (DE) 16
John Kerry (MA) 14
Mike Gravel (AK) 10


GOP

Haley Barbour (MS) 79
Mitt Romney (MA) 74
Tim Pawlenty (MN) 70
Tom Tancredo (CO) 46
Rudy Giuliani (NY) 32
John McCain (AZ) 26
James Gilmore (VA) 24
Fred Thompson (TN) 23
Chuck Hagel (NE) 20
Mike Huckabee (AR) 19
Duncan Hunter (CA) 19
Sam Brownback (KS) 19
Frank Keating (OK) 17
Tom Coburn (OK) 16
Newt Gingrich (GA) 11
Tommy Thompson (WI) 10
George Pataki (NY) 7

Daschle out, Richardson in for 2008 presidential race

I had heard some really bad things about New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, I think about six months ago. Some of those things were probably being spread by his political foes; a lot of that talk has dried up but now it might start up again.

I like Richardson and would like to see the Democrats nominate him. He's almost as strong a candidate as Hillary, and I think potentially far more likable to the electorate. I would consider voting for him, especially if someone like McCain or Giuliani is the nominee.

Also, Daschle recently announced he wouldn't run. No surprise there.

DEMS

Barack Obama (IL) 100
Wes Clark (AR) 89
Hillary Clinton (NY) 56
John Edwards (NC) 54
Bill Richardson (NM) 48 (+1)
Tom Vilsack (IA) 45
John Murtha (PA) 33
Al Gore (TN) 24
Joe Biden (DE) 16
Evan Bayh (IN) 16
John Kerry (MA) 14
Mike Gravel (AK) 10


GOP

Condoleeza Rice (CA) 79
Haley Barbour (MS) 79
Mitt Romney (MA) 74
Tim Pawlenty (MN) 70
Tom Tancredo (CO) 46
Rudy Giuliani (NY) 32
John McCain (AZ) 26
Fred Thompson (TN) 23
Chuck Hagel (NE) 20
Mike Huckabee (AR) 19
Duncan Hunter (CA) 19
Sam Brownback (KS) 19
Tom Coburn (OK) 16
Newt Gingrich (GA) 11
Tommy Thompson (WI) 10
George Pataki (NY) 7

What is WinChoice, the Presidential Winnability Index?

In several days I had two questions about how my rating system for these candidates work. While I don't want to go into excessive detail about the exact methodology I use (does Blackwell spill everything about how his best/worst list works?) I can offer some details about what goes into my ranking of potential presidential candidates.

First off, this is a ranking of how a candidate would do if they get the nomination, not how they will fare in the nominating process. For example, I don't know for sure that Barack Obama will get the nomination, but I know he would beat any GOPer who has announced, expressed interest or who I have heard is secretly plotting a run. Will Haley Barbour get the nomination, or even run? Who knows - but if he did, he could beat Hillary Clinton.

I've given up trying to figure out what motivates voters in primaries, but I have an excellent feel for what a candidate could do if they ran. My system has worked in 1996 and 2004, and in 2000 I had Bush and Gore neck and neck with a slight edge to Gore - I count this as accurate since Gore did edge Bush in the popular vote.

Now, I will be the first to admit that there's no way to determine how accurate my rankings are. What are the odds that Tom Vilsack will face Sam Brownback in 2008? Slim, I think, but does it pass your gut check if I asserted that Vilsack would win such a contest? If you looked into a crystal ball to November 2008 and saw Hillary and Newt locked in electoral conflict, would you be surprised to peer a little deeper into the crystal and see Clinton butchering Gingrich like a fatted hog? No, I daresay you wouldn't be.

My schema for these rankings is semi-secret, but you can usually get some hints by looking at the rankings. For example, the big drops a lot of the GOP candidates took after the elections and upswings for Dems was a reflection of the 2006 midterm results.

It basically goes like this:

About 40% of a candidate's rating is based on external factors pretty much beyond anyone's control, including the mood of the electorate, the economy and whether we seem weak or strong from a foreign policy perspective (I'll post sometime on why, from a foreign policy perspective, no one is ever really in control of anything - not us, not our allies and not our enemies).

About 40% of a candidate's rating is based on the candidate's record, character and relationship with the media. As far as record, I track some positions that any serious candidate for national office should probably take. Here are most, but not all, of those positions:

LIMIT IMMIGRATION

PROHIBIT GAY MARRIAGE

LIMIT ABORTION (note - not outlaw. See Hillary Clinton about how to be simultaneously pro-choice and anti-abortion)

SUPPORT DEATH PENALTY

SUPPORT UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE

SUPPORT SECOND AMENDMENT

SUPPORT PROPERTY RIGHTS

CUT TAXES

STRENGTHEN HOMELAND SECURITY

FISCAL DISCIPLINE

Two things - one, don't jump all over me for these positions. I don't necessarily agree with all of them, but let me tell you, all of these should be pretty much no-brainers for anyone who wants to get elected or re-elected to Congress and certainly the presidency. Two - yeah, I know they are mostly pretty conservative. But the voters are pretty conservative too, and don't think for a moment this last election didn't prove that. Americans are pretty much conservative socially, fiscally and from a foreign policy perspective. Please note that it was by no means a conservative position to tear ass into Iraq in 2003.

Lastly, 20% of the rating is based on my own political instincts and feel for how an individual candidate appears to the voter. My credentials here are I have made pretty good money over the last decade doing that very thing.

Anyway, that's a bare bones outline of what is going on in my head with these rankings. Sorry for the vagueness, but I'd like to write a book in 2009, and I will sell more if I don't spill all the good dirt now.

In the next few days I will make some additions and deletions from the ranking. Until then . . .

Quick ranking of presidential contenders 2008

There's been some activity in the last week, with Tom Vilsack, Evan Bayh and Hillary Clinton - finally - announcing their intentions to seek the presidency in 2008.

Bayh probably doesn't have a chance, he's running because people close to him have been telling him to run for so long that he's forgotten what an unknown he is outside the world of wonkdom.

Hillary is of course in the top tier of Democratic candidates for 2008, but something tells me she isn't going to make it. Vilsack is interesting, keep your eye on him.

All of them right now are holding their breath to see if Obama runs. Right now that guy holds all the cards. I have zilch-o contacts in Illinois politics and certainly no contact with anyone even vaguely close to him. But every Democratic fundraiser and politician I know is excited about him, and I know a pretty wideranging bunch, from Blue Dog types here in Texas to old black power types in KC to congressional staffers in DC. There's a lot of legitimate, non-hype grassroots interest around Obama right now and not all of it is there as part of some campaign to sell his book. And my own opinion? He's the strongest candidate either party could field right now.

The question mark hanging over him is why we get the vague stuff from Clinton right now, nothing out of the Richardson camp, and only insulated senate ego trips like Kerry, Bayh and Edwards making white house noises. It's also why we're not hearing much from a Democratic governor that a source tells me would love to make a run. I'm holding off on naming him now because I was promised more info if I held off for now, but his name has been floated as a potential candidate before. Anyway, if Obama decides not to run you are going to see the Democratic field broaden considerably.

As a final note, I am adding the clown George Pataki to the GOP side. Earlier I mentioned ego cases - Pataki could set that bar.

DEMS

Barack Obama (IL) 100
Wes Clark (AR) 89
Hillary Clinton (NY) 56 (+1)
John Edwards (NC) 54
Bill Richardson (NM) 47
Tom Vilsack (IA) 45 (+1)
John Murtha (PA) 33
Al Gore (TN) 24
Tom Daschle (SD) 20
Joe Biden (DE) 16
Evan Bayh (IN) 16 (+1)
John Kerry (MA) 14
Mike Gravel (AK) 10


GOP

Condoleeza Rice (CA) 79
Haley Barbour (MS) 79
Mitt Romney (MA) 74
Tim Pawlenty (MN) 70
Tom Tancredo (CO) 46
Rudy Giuliani (NY) 32
John McCain (AZ) 26
Fred Thompson (TN) 23
Chuck Hagel (NE) 20
Mike Huckabee (AR) 19
Duncan Hunter (CA) 19
Sam Brownback (KS) 19
Tom Coburn (OK) 16
Newt Gingrich (GA) 11
Tommy Thompson (WI) 10
George Pataki (NY) 7