The Stable - handicapping the Democratic Race.

[illinoisprogressive]

the writer is talking pure horserace. Since we can usually only do 4 paragraphs the link will take you to the rest of the race handicapping.

http://thephoenix.com/article_ektid46380.aspx


Braying for a victory
BARACK OBAMA: THE COME-FROM-BEHIND CHOICE Yes, we know that no one else seems to consider him the Dems’ likeliest choice. And yes, he’s made a few rookie mistakes (to be expected), and he’s lost a bit of sparkle during his debate performances. But he’s hoping the flip side of his ever-presence is that voters are gradually becoming accustomed to him, and that, as a more familiar face, he’ll seem less inexperienced. He still has tons of cash, heavy institutional support in the black community, and a lot of energy through his support among the young. No one should underestimate him.

HILLARY CLINTON: THE PACESETTER She’s run a mistake-free campaign so far. And she is the consensus front-runner — in the polls and among the punditry. But voters have yet to really face the two issues confronting the Clinton candidacy: do they want to relive the Clinton years? And, do they want to nominate a candidate whose chances of winning a general election are thus impaired? Until the contests actually begin, we won’t know if voters are going to swallow their doubts and take a chance on Clinton. The guess here is that at the moment of truth, they’ll blink.

JOHN EDWARDS: THE CHALLENGER Edwards retains the problem he had when he announced. No matter how many times he reinvents himself or moves to the left, he still needs to do well in an early state other than Iowa. And even the Hawkeye state, a must win for him, is hardly looking to be a sure thing. Ultimately, Edwards has depended on the possibility of Clinton or Obama stumbling, leaving him the alternative to the survivor. The problem is that neither Obama nor Clinton looks likely to do a quick fade. Edwards may be the odd one out.

BILL RICHARDSON: THE LONG SHOT Richardson has run an effective race. Unfortunately, he’s not a terribly effective candidate. True, his debate performances, though hardly stellar, have been better than expected. But any candidate who can’t stand up to Tim Russert on Meet the Press (Richardson put in what may be the worst appearance by a guest in decades) is going to have a hard time facing up to Vladimir Putin and the rest. It’s impossible to see how he breaks into the second tier, since even his strongest state, Nevada, doesn’t count for much. He’ll be gone before Super Tuesday.

[wyldwolf]

1. typically biased against Clinton

But voters have yet to really face the two issues confronting the Clinton candidacy: do they want to relive the Clinton years? And, do they want to nominate a candidate whose chances of winning a general election are thus impaired?

Polling shows the American people, as a whole, think of the Clinton years fondly, thus, her chances of winning in the general based on that are not impaired. And as was shown earlier this week, Clinton's perceived weakness in the General has vanished.

:shrug:

[Catchawave]

2. Disgusting RW stuff, like these too:

JOE BIDEN: FRANCIS THE TALKING MULE A Biden victory was always a remote possibility, but he could have used his one asset — his considerable experience — to distinguish himself from the three leaders. He also could have taken a page out of the Romney playbook and spent his money early in an attempt to become known. Instead, he’s seemed content to kind of sneer his way through the debates and not do much else. Consequently, he’s done.

CHRIS DODD: THE VETERAN A terribly nice and able guy who isn’t going to advance toward the White House. He should save himself embarrassment and withdraw now.

DENNIS KUCINICH: THE JACKASS Kucinich is on an ego trip. If he really cared about the issues he professes to champion, he’d get behind a candidate with similar concerns (probably Edwards; perhaps Obama) who has a real chance to win. Instead, he takes up space in the field and on the debate stage, draining energy from the other liberals. Thus, all he does is help Clinton. Thanks, but no thanks, Dennis.

[maximusveritas]

3. Weak analysis IMO

Just a parroting of conventional wisdom. The Edwards analysis is closest to the truth. The rest falls way short.
The thing that stuck out to me was when he called Richardson's debate performances "better than expected" Unless you had the expectation that he would be as bad as Bush, I'm not sure there's any way for that to make sense.