Whoever gets above 5% in polls (whether they say they are in or not) and everyone who says they are in...then let God sort'em out.

I think once a month up to September or October 2007 is probably a good frequency.

Things to consider: funds raised, poll position, ground organization, message, media (positive, negative, neutral), web presence, endorsements.

1.  Is the Oregon Gobvernor Kitzhaber?  Another doctor who wants to reform the health system (sound familiar) working towards universal coverage.  IIRC he wanted to delete a few super-expensive items from Medicaid and greatly expand coverage but the feds wouldn't allow it even though the state legislature had OK'd it.

2.  Consider specifically strength in the early caucus/primary states.  Self funding possibility proved key for Kerry in 2004 (mortgaged his house).

3.  Once every two weeks is good.  

Definitely by netroots support.

Monthly straw polls until September/October OR until three of four probably ins have made a decision.  Then a monthly compilation of public polls in the primary states, money raised and national polls.

BTW, How about a parallel negative poll - people the netroots DO NOT want (DINOs,etc.) For instance. Hillary and Obama. It could be a process of elimination.

I'd rather see rankings by likelihood to win the nomination.  Keep the nomination pool relatively broad until we are a year out or so.  I would think that money totals are less important than fundraising potential, at least until that first quarterly report.

as far as a title, the rhyme is a bit obnoxious, but "horserace showcase"?

One idea is show two, three or even four polls side by side every month. ( once a month )

A National Poll ( you can pick even two or three reputable organizations to use such as Surveyusa or ABC, MSNBC, et)

and

The Vote of Mydd members for that month.

It would be nice to compare the pulse of the MYdd members as compared to Democrats as a whole.

I would have one poll per month until summer of January/February of 2008.

why don't you base your poll on who is actually accomplishing things... this next presidential candidate has the ability to define the Democratic party for the next 20 years, so let's rally around someone that is providing leadership.

Al Gore and Wes Clark could attract independents and some R's if national security is of prime importance. If Bush brings the troops home alive in 2007, then Eliot Spitzer, Brian Schweitzer and Bill Richardson should be seriously considered, all strong on acountability and ethics.

There was talk once, very ill-informed, that Oregon's present Governor (Kulongoski) might run, but he's been re-elected and has a Democratic Legislature to work with (thank God), so that's dead in the water.

As for Kitzhaber, the very popular former Governor, that's a non-starter too, he's very averse to DC and it'll be a miracle if we can get him to run for Senate (and take out our lone Republican Senator, Smith).

And to add my two bits, I don't like anybody running now for the Dems except Gore, who isn't even running. I would support Edwards, but I still don't believe he can overcome the "what has he done" criticism, and neither does Obama.

   The more people who enter the race (half the senate by next summer perhaps?) the more I wish that Mark Warner had not dropped out of the race.  I wasn't even a big Warner supporter before, but those top six names listed are woefully uninspiring.

How's about a siren song,Chris?  You know best about all of the rest.  Thanks!

Ah, I can practically see the Empirical Cattle Call ... I'm gettin' all misty here.

Your frequency seems about right, although I think you may even be overdoing it before the summer (most of the movement before then is bogus). Money shouldn't be considered too highly until the second quarter; I doubt the first quarter numbers will be all the determinative (I think Dean had barely enough to buy a pizza at the end of the first quarter 2003).

I'd go with any information from early primary/caucus states before considering national polls at all. I'm not sure about throwing them out (I don't think you'll have all that much data without them), but ... use them sparingly.

Hell, the MyDD straw poll is probably just as good a data-point as any at this point ...

Can't we wait till next summer?

Ranked List A: Who's most likely to win the nomination?

Ranked List B: Who's impressing you the most?

... urge to supplement pushes it to weekly.

You could use a synonym for Cattle Call, like Open Audition.

Definitely not electability and national rankings - we can get that stuff from CNN. MyDD is part of the people-powered movement, which was responsible for making Howard Dean the out-of-nowhere insurgent contender that he was. Let's maintain that tradition and focus on the underground, grassroots support. That means keeping an eye out for local coverage in Iowa, NH, Nevada, etc., quality of campaign staffers, message being delivered by the candidate, campaign innovations (house party, anyone?), etc. All the stuff that a beltway, establishment media would overlook because they're too busy chasing down a James Carville quote.

Depending on how much work you want to do, three columns, each candidate ranked by:

1. By national polling results.

2. By money raised.
   
3. By MyDD online poll

Real numbers, real dollars and how they rank in heaven.

The MyDD vs. national poll would be fun to watch. See if MyDD is a leading or lagging indicator.

Real numbers to real dollars would be interesting to track dollar influence.

Not sure if you could do it HTML wise so viewers could sort each column so they could see who was No. 1 each by clicking on column header.

I really can't believe we're going to do this for more than a year before Iowa. Part of me is disgusted, but a bigger part is elated. And I do think it will help give structure to those who don't even want to THINK about it for 2 weeks at a time.

So here are my suggestions. Thanks for all your hard work.

1. Name
All The Pretty Horses

Running Board

Pack Rats

2. Who to Include
In Dec. and Jan., everybody officially and probably in.
In Feb. and thereafter, only those who have officially announced.

3. Ranking Criteria
If you can devise a working equation that includes these factors, I would be very happy:
National polls + chance to win nomination + money + staff strength + endorsements

Do not include community vote, netroots/progressive support, leads in early states, online polls.

My preference is for the Rankings to be as close to an objective barometer of who's stronger and weaker, NOT a netroots/progressive poll of who we WANT to be ahead. The equation I propose above, elaborated on by you, would be much better than, and much more entertaining than, any of the national polls.

4. Subjective or Empirical
Empirically based equation above, PLUS a subjective number that assesses momentum swings, media tone, and other factors.

5. Periodicity
Bimonthly till September is great.

Call it America's Next Top Candidate

Include:
Anyone who has announced (certainly)
People who are all but certain who have not ruled it out

Exclude:
People who have said they are not running (including Gore)

I wasn't paying attention to Dkos in 03 so I'm not sure what the model is. The rankings you had for the congressional races just past were very helpful in determining which races were worth watching/supporting/etc from afar based solely on competitiveness. In this case however, there is only one race you are talking about, so I'm not sure the aim. I think periodic roundups of who has done/said what to endear/disgust the netroots might be useful. You could solicit for specific criteria, for instance announced policy proposals (health care plans, education proposal) announced positions on existing legislation etc (net neutrality, estate tax...), stupid things said, great speeches, endorsements, supporting groups (beyond endorsements, eg. unions, environmentalists...), etc.

I think the horse-race aspect is going to be covered to death, I suppose if you can come up with criteria and an objective formula that is different from everyone else's and provides a useful new perspective it might be nice, but not critical.
MyDD support might be something others wouldn't have, but a poll every 2 weeks seems excessive.

The aim also is a determinant in what criteria you use, but if it's just a horse-race deal, the criteria should be objective, b/c otherwise you are just one more person giving your opinion on who's in the lead and I assume you'll be giving us plenty of opinions pretty regularly without a special name and predetermined format.

I think 2 times a month sounds like a lot 2 years out.

I think you should wait until about march and then only choose people who have announced.

In summary, the question for me is, are you tracking who people are supporting (either who the netroots/myDD supports, or who is winning the horserace) or are you tracking who people ought to support (which I think will change as we get to know them better, and will have some component of how they are doing)?

I think we should all just get used to saying President Gravel.

Gravel-mania is sweeping the nation. Catch it! (Then tell us where you found it)

Not a formal announcement, however:

"Later today, John Edwards' One America Cmte will announce that ex-Rep. David Bonior (D-MI) has come aboard as a senior adviser for policy and politics."

http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/a rchives/2006/12/edwards_finds_a.html

It's all over.

/snark

Right now, the race is shaping up as a contest to see who isn't as bad as the other candidates. I say, run with it.

1. Least Sucky Rankings

2. That is a great sucky list
   
3. Suckiness factor
   
4. Empirical
   
5. Less often than senate and house roundups

I'm really going to be impressed if anything gets cobbled together that's particularly useful without being convoluted.  I really don't see how you can quantify progress in a national primary, so it devolves into analysis which doesn't need a special name, just maybe a tag.

And since it really can't be just numbers and facts, let's call it "Chris's Wishes, Bitches"

with all due respect of course.

However it is done, just keep Gore in there until the very end, whether he says he is out or not. Obama and Hillary are a no go... because our country is still racist and that word I can not spell that me woman hating. Gore or Clark. But, the poetic justice of "president Gore" could go a long way toward saving our country. Damnit, I have a feeling he means it when he says he is out. Please, whatever methodology you use, keep Gore in there... Just because it is Just.

Perhaps you could do a breakdown of votes based on how long someone has been registered on MyDD, like >1 year with >5 comments?  It'd be interesting to see if there's any difference between these voters, and all the other voters.

My suggestion is you rank them by community vote, but the question should be "Who do you think has the best chance to win the General election?"  

Or you do 3 polls and average the results:  1) who do you like? 2) who do you think would win? and 3) who would make the best president?

I think you should include anybody in the list till September 2007, then limit it to people who haven't said no, and by the middle of Novemeber just include those have said they will yes...the point being to have as much influence as possible at each stage.

It might be useful (scratch that, just interesting for all us political junkies) to poll possible VP selections. Sure there is no way to determine who would be a good VP for X candidate given the other variables at play in making such a decision (regional distribution, Republican-counter-weight, domestic v. foreign policy credentials, etc.) but let's be honest in that many of these candidates, at best, are running for VP.

Who would have thought, even after the 2004 Iowa caucuses, that John Kerry would win the Georgia primary?  He did, narrowly.  Such is the power of momentum, and the reason why national polls and rankings are useless.  It's all about Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina this year.

BTW, who is Mike Gravel?  

According to SC Democratic Party chair Joe Erwin:

   * Officially In: Bayh, Gravel, Vilsack
    * In all but officially: Biden, Clinton, Dodd, Edwards, Richardson, Kerry
    * Possibly In: Gore, Obama, Clark
    * Out: Daschle, Feingold, Warner

One quick point I'd like to make: the big bloggers have an incentive to knock down candidates that don't need their support because they have independent sources of support (see: Obama, Barack and Clinton, Hillary). Correlatively, bloggers have an incentive to hype candidates that come out of no where. In order to maximize their political power, blogs have to maintain the perception that they can make or break a serious bid. Whether or not this is the case, or whether it should be, is another question.

I say this because it is important that bloggers at places like MyDD and Kos maintain analytic clarity in order to make proper judgments about who to support. The best candidate for the progressive cause isn't necessarily the one who maximizes netroots power, and to think otherwise could lead to the wrong endorsement.

Why bother?

I'm not sure Chris can add much value to the information already out there. The time would probably be better spent on other topics that aren't being covered to death elsewhere.

Let's face it, since we don't know what the deciding factor in the race is going to be, it is difficult, if not impossible, to assess the current state of play. For example: the current primary schedule is pro-Edwards, HRC leads every opinion poll in 2006 by 10-15%, HRC seems likely to outraise the others, Clark/Obama/Gore do well in netroots' polls; will any of these be relevant come March 2008?

With hindsight it is easy to explain why X got the nomination. But a year or even a month in advance, all we get are these circular arguments that dominate every post on 2008 and by now we know them all by heart.

Award points for each catagory on the experience/vision/leadership scale
Where is BUSH the candidate on this scale?!! If people had used experience instead of. . . .

Include a catagory for most experienced in GOVERNING,
for instance: ambassador to UN, Cabinet Secretary, Governor of state, County Executive, party chair = 5 points

OTHER LEADERSHIP:
Executive Business experience: CEO start-up = 1 point
Labor organizing experience: = 1 point
Non-profit and political leadership experience: i.e., One America= 1 point.
Teaching: = 1 point
Travel to meet world leaders= 1 point

PROGRESSIVE Actions Scale: (See Progressive Caucus list), sponsored the Apollo Bill for clean energy = 1 point

MINUS POINTS
Voted for Iraq war resolution, = 1 minus point
Voted for Alito = 1
Failed to join Alito fillibuster = 1
Voted for Torture Bill = 1
Voted for Bancruptcy bill = 1
Worked to defeat Dems = Remove from list

1. Maybe "2008 Musterings?"

2. No idea who else is running, you seem to have all of them to me. I like the divisions as they stand.

3. Chance to win nomination -- in my view it's more tilted to progressive area. National polls for now I'd say should be tossed, but that just implies that at a certain time they should be good and I have no idea when that would be. Probably not till after the primary, and that's useless here.

4. Subjective, but of course you need some basis of empirical grounding. You need those intangibles to get the best picture I feel.

"Markos used to do the rankings every week. However, I don't think I would bother with that until at least September of 2007. Before then, I would like to do one before the New Year, one in January, and then two every month until September. Do you think that is too little? Too much? I would like to know what you can stand."

5. One before New Year, and one in January sounds fine. Two every month till around May-ish/early June I like. And then three a month till September where it picks up. But then again I do lean toward liking all these types of posts, even if they're just to say "Not much information this time."