2008 Power Rankings: October 13th, 2007
Posted on October 13th, 2007 by Jason Wright, EditorWelcome to the latest edition of PoliticalDerby.com’s 2008 Power Rankings, the original tracking service in the current race for the White House. The rankings are updated as circumstances warrant and are compiled by our Editor and contributors using wire reports, polls, campaign staffer scuttlebutt and confidential tips.
And now off to the races!
Rankings last updated: October 13, 2007 |
| Power Ranking | The Horse | Momentum | The Tip Sheet | |
 |
Hillary Clinton |  |
 |
Hillary out raised everyone in a quarter that saw her give back $850,000 back to a corrupt donor. Campaign scuttlebutt suggests she’ll soon offer that same amount to every American as her bidding war with herself continues. $5,000 per kid quickly became $1,000 per person per year, so she’s on the right trajectory. At this point her cackle and Bill’s super-sexed libido are the only real threats to winning the nomination. (previous ranking: #1) |
 |
Hillary Clinton | |
|
She slipped a little, but in a stunning move, was overtaken by herself. Refusing to commit to having all US troops out of Iraq by 2013 displeased the Democrat base. But that fizzled when the other top-tier Democratic candidates, with the exception of Richardson, said the exact same thing. Keep your friends close, and those positioning themselves to be your Vice Presidential nominee, closer. (previous ranking: #1) |
 |
Hillary Clinton | |
|
Do you see the trend? Hillary is back to assuming the top three spots. This is her race to lose unless the media starts flexing their muscles and asking tougher questions. How are you going to pay for all of your promises? Why are you aligning yourself with someone who likes to shove classified documents down his pants for kicks? Who’s better for the kids, Britney or K-Fed? (previous ranking: #1) |
 |
Barack Obama |  |
 |
Little things like lapel pins mean so much, especially when the conventional wisdom is you’re just too wet behind the ears. He just can’t seem to shake the Not-Ready-for-Prime-Time image. Perhaps his fortune will change once he starts spending his millions on TV ads, but for now his numbers are stuck. (previous ranking: #2) |
 |
John Edwards |  |
|
Edwards is having a hard time stepping out of his wife’s shadow, and for good reason, she may be the better story. Can he reclaim his once prized-Iowa lead? Will rumors that Edwards had a tryst with a former staffer stick? And if so, will he have paid more for her than the haircuts? (previous ranking: #3) |
| Others receiving votes: Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, Al Gore, Mike Gravel, Dennis Kucinich, Bill Richardson |
|
|
|
|
| Rankings last updated: October 13, 2007 |
| Power Ranking | The Horse | Momentum | The Tip Sheet | |
 |
Rudy Giuliani |  |
|
Rudy regains the top spot because he out raised his fellow Republicans without dipping into his own pocket to pad his total. His position in New Hampshire is improving by the day and he’s picked up several recent endorsements. It also didn’t hurt that he’s not the one who suggested consulting lawyers before acting on matters of national defense. He owes a Mitt a slice of New York pizza for that tasty debate gaffe. (previous ranking: #2) |
 |
Fred Thompson |  |
 |
Pick your school of thought on Fred Thompson’s first debate performance. One says he did poorly in the debate with his alternating short and rambling answers. The other thinks he cleared the bar just fine, thank you very much. None of that matters, the important thing is he finally showed up. Fred was second in fundraising - if you don’t count Romney’s generous loan - and he has plenty of money to get through the year. (previous ranking: #1) |
 |
Mitt Romney |  |
|
Mitt, Mitt, Mitt. The Law & Order debate joke was more canned than his Grandma’s peaches and his line about consulting attorneys sent shivers down the spines of conservatives. Is there something in the Massachusetts water? We’ve gone from a “Global Test” to a “Bar Exam” on issues of national defense. He needs to sit down with his largest donor, himself, and find a way to be as polished as he’s been accused of being. (previous ranking: #3) |
 |
John McCain |  |
 |
Still clinging to life, still fighting and perhaps finding traction in the Granite State. He’s proof positive that if you’re going to fall flat on your face, make sure you do it early enough that you have time to pick yourself back up. McCain’s hurdle will be having enough cash to sustain momentum if he wins or finishes second in New Hampshire. Anything less and it’s back to the morgue, err, Senate. (previous ranking: tied for #4) |
 |
Mike Huckabee (tie) |
 |
|
Huckabee’s strength had been the debates, but not this last time. Only when he spoke were viewers aware he was even on the stage, then he was quickly forgotten. Of course according to former Bush advisor Dan Bartlett, Huckabee’s name is just too darn silly sounding to win the White House anyway. With that kind of groundbreaking insight, taxpayers should feel fortunate he’s not on the government payroll any longer. (previous ranking: #5) |
|
Ron Paul (tie) |
 |
|
Paul and Huckabee may be tied, but they are headed in opposite directions. Raising $5 million in the last quarter is nothing to sniff at when “also-ran” jokes have often had your name as a punch-line. He still defines the term long-shot, but a 3rd place finish in an early state would be something for Team Paul to savor. (previous ranking: #5) |
| Others receiving votes: Sam Brownback, Newt Gingrich, Duncan Hunter, Ron Paul, Tom Tancredo |
|
|
|
|
The rankings may not be reprinted or quoted in any form without attribution to PoliticalDerby.com.
Posted in Power Rankings-2008, White House-2008 by
Jason Wright, Editor •
24 comments •
Post a comment
24 comments •
Post a comment
24 Comments
Leave a comment
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Mike Huckabee’s response to Dan Bartlet (The former White House Official):
“My last name has never opened doors for me because it’s not the name of a prominent, wealthy, or heralded political family, but the Bible says that “a GOOD name is more to be desired than great riches,” and my name represents the sacrifice, hard work, and old fashioned discipline that my Dad gave me when he didn’t have the education, wealth, or position to give me anything else. It’s a name I wear proudly–not just for myself, but all those who like me have fought their way beyond poverty to live and love the American dream.”
Dan Pearlstein of the Washington Post had this to say about Huckabee’s last debate performance and the news medias’s (i.e. http://www.politicalderby.com )coverage of his candidacy.
“Judged by who can offer a serious approach to economic policy, the hands-down winner in the Republican race so far is Huckabee, who combines intelligence, candor and comfortable familiarity with the issues and a practical approach anchored in solid conservative beliefs.
If only the political press were as impressed with the quality of a candidate’s program as with his name recognition, it would be Huckabee, not Thompson, who was energizing the Republican contest.”
Are you aware that Mike Huckabee has the lowest unfavorable rating among Republicans? Of coarse not, they haven’t told you…
Are you aware that Mike Huckabee is polling 3rd in Iowa behind Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson (ahead of McCain and Guiliani)? Of coarse not, they haven’t told you…
Are you aware that Huckabee is polling at 7% nationally (only two percent behind Romney)? Of coarse not, they haven’t told you…
Are you aware that both Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich say that Huckabee is the Republican candidate with the most potential? Of coarse not, they haven’t told you…
Are you aware that the famous Rocker and hunter Ted Nugent is a Huckabee supporter? Of coarse not, they haven’t told you…
Are you aware that Ron Paul is still at a measley 2% nationally, yet political derby has him in a virtual tie with Huckabee? Of coarse not, they haven’t told you…
I really don’t know why the news media hasn’t picked up on Mike Huckabee, but at first they dismissed him, and now their attacking him, makes you wonder doesn’t it…
It’s starting to look like a Giuliani/Huckabee ticket.
Pray tell how does Rudy take over first if his momentum is falling but Fred’s continues to rise? People forget that fundraising was for 1/3 of the last quarter.
I’m not worried, Fred will regain the #1 spot that he should still have.
AndDru1, do you believe Huckabee stood out in any way in that last debate? And do you dismiss Paul’s superior Q3 fundraising numbers? He raised 5 times as much as Huckabee.
Troy La Mana, Thompson’s numbers have actually faded the last month. (according to RCP averages) The fundraising was good, I grant you that, but some suggest that’s a result of low-hanging fruit after he finally announced. Q4 will be a much better gauge.
AndDru1, I hate to contradict you, but you’re simply wrong on the question of unfavorables. According to Rasmussen, only John McCain has HIGHER unfavorables among GOP faithful.
“Huckabee is viewed favorably by 43% and unfavorably by 34% by the GOP faithful. Of the leading candidates, only McCain attracts more negative reviews from Republican voters—the Arizona Senator is viewed unfavorably by 36%.”
Their rankings are crap.
Yo! Ease up on Mitt! Why a down arrow when he kept the same ranking?
And please remember - his personal donations are all PRMARY donations, leaving his actual fundraising all loaded up to take on Hilary, when the others would be scrambing. If you GOT $500 million, what’s 10 or 20 here and there?
Huck is a strong second for me - and it will be a Romney/Huckabee ticket in 2008!
Jason, I typed this once and my network messed up, so here’s the shorter and more irritated version.
Huckabee was impressive in the debate. I thought he was the 3rd best performer behind Mitt and Rudy. His not being as impressive as the aforementioned candidates isn’t surprising as he recieved 6 min. less time to get his views across, and was at least on one occasion, continuously interupted by a rude moderator.
I do not dismiss anyone’s Q3 fundraising numbers. Paul’s numbers have consistantly been impressive, yet Huckabee has consistantly out polled Ron.
Huckabee has 3X more support than Ron Paul.
I looked into the Rasmussen Poll you were reffering to. The Poll I was reffering to was the latest Gallup Poll. While the two polls may seem contradictory on the surface, they’re not. The Rasmussen Poll is critically flawed in that it doesn’t take into account voters who have either not heard of a candidate or have not formed a solid opinion of him yet. This poll does, http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=28939 , and Huckabee’s unfavorable rating is at 9%, much lower than the above mentioned 34%.
Fox News and Political Derby, are two of my favorite sources to recieve my political news. They both however are critically flawed in that the neither of them has accurately and sufficiently report the advances in the Huckabee campaign. There is either a media bias against him, or a media ignorance about him.
As the Guiliani supporter and the Romney supporter have mentioned above, he’s gonna be on the ticket with or without your support. I like you and your site (as I’ve said many times), but clearly this site has under reported the support for his campaign.
Why is my comment being moderated? My other 5 posts weren’t today, how does this work?
I expected the numbers to fade after the announcement bump. We’ll see how this quarter goes.
AndDru1, fair point on the other poll, but I think we’d all agree that you can read almost anything into any poll. Numbers are a sneaky thing.
As for your contention that PD has some Huckabee bias, well that’s just silly. We’ve taken shots at EVERY campaign when merited. And not long ago I had this to say in the Power Rankings:
“The only person not surprised by Huckabee’s showing in the straw poll is Huckabee himself. Finishing second, while only spending $58 per vote, is a terrific showing for someone the media has been considering an also-ran from Day One. Surely Giuliani’s decision not to participate helped, but so have his stellar showings in the debates. If there is an argument to be made for so many debates so early, Huckabee is it. But he would be the only argument for so many debates so early. (And there is no argument, period, for having Chris Matthews or Keith Olbermann hosting debates no matter how early they are.) (previous ranking: #5)”
Do a search on the site for “Huckabee” and you’ll find more of the same.
I understand you’re a Huck guy, we all get it, but the “woe is us” thing doesn’t fly. Tell your guy to win some straw polls, raise more money and hit double digits in the national polls, I guarantee his coverage here and elsewhere will improve.
I never suggested that you, as an individual, had any bias towards Mike Huckabee. I know at previous times you have had some very good things to say about him. The same cannot be said for some of your colleagues. These power rankings were simply the straw that broke the camel’s back.
My frustration deals more with FNC, than with you guys anyway…
Huck does need to raise more money, and has taken deliberate steps toward doing so.
If I can get you an exclusive interview with Huck or a high ranking official in his camp, will you take it?
Definitely. Have his people call my people
You have people? I wish I had people… I’ll see what I can do…
Jason,
I think you may want to change the arrow on Rudy. Due to the change in rankings, change of momentum, and the polls, it clearly should now be pointing up.
“Numbers are a tricky thing.”
I agree. I’m a Ron Paul supporter and am happy that he won so many straw polls, online polls, dominates online, etc., but I don’t sit on my duff thinking “Okay, he’s got it in the bag.”
The mainstream media’s polls don’t fool me for a second. They are clearly trying to create a perception of who will win this election (as they have always done). Most people are either gullible, apathetic, or sellouts allowing the ruse to succeed. And worst this ruse is one in which voting will mean nothing.
And yes, I am talking MAJOR conspiracy. Something I don’t take lightly.
I can’t believe there is no papertrail…no IDs…so much evidence of voter fraud in the past with narely the people batting a eye.
I guess they just don’t care. As long as they have their job, Grey’s Anatomy, and the Cheesecake Factory, they don’t want to rattle their cages.
Geeze, if you want Huck to move up, tell him to drop his ridiculous “fair tax” proposal. I’m not a pimp or a drug dealer, but I don’t think I could afford a flat screen tv if I had to pay another 30% on top of it. Can anyone think of a better way to stunt economic growth? I don’t even think hillary could!
Settle down there Shmen, the cost of the TV would in all liklihood go down. The Fair Tax elimates all the taxes for those who make the TV (except the tax when they buy the materials), and for those who sell it. Plus, you would have more money to spend, since you wouldn’t be giving so much of it to the government. And it’s not another 30% even on the sales tax. The average American would be paying less taxes, and everyone knows that Reaganomics work. Tax cuts stimulate economic growth. Plus this takes the heavy burden off the middle class, who would rather save their money for a kid’s college fund, then send it to Uncle Sam. The only people the Fair Tax hurts are the IRS.
Certainly I’d want to hurt the IRS and their army of bureaucrats.
… speaking of Reaganomics… I heard something the other day that made me laugh. Remember “Tear down this wall!” … I think Duncan Hunter and Tancredo missed that incident. Hunter, I believe is looking for campaign support from defense contractors - but I think Tancredo actually hates immigrants. He blames them for EVERYTHING. Hey man, we’re ALL immigrants.
The FairTax doesn’t increase cost of living. As the cost of things increases by X%, your paycheck increases by X%.
I studied the FairTax extensively…even read the book (unbiased book, I’m sure).
What the book doesn’t say is:
1. A massive black market will open up.
2. Lots o’ people will stop spending at first: out of fear and to try to save/pay off debt. I know I would. I wouldn’t spend a dime on ‘non-essentials’.
3. Lots of ‘underground’ people wouldn’t get those gov’ment checks every month. ‘So what’, you say? Well they ain’t gonna take that…instead they will resort to even MORE criminal activity (see number 1).
4. The FairTax revenue would be the same as the income tax revenue. AND THE INCOME TAX REVENUE IS WRONG TO BEGIN WITH!!! It is overtaxation. Replacing it with ANYTHING is still as wrong. It’s like saying “Could you please kick my right nut instead of my left?”
I agree with points 1 & 2, and I could see 3 happening (but not on Huck’s watch). I’m obviously not as knowledgable about this as you, but while the revenue would remain constant, from my understanding, the average American would pay less taxes, because the Fair Tax cuts through alot of the wasteful bureaucracy that is our current tax system. I know alot of you Libertarians would like a really small government, and I honestly respect that, but even you would have to say the fair tax is a feasable step in the right direction.