Richardson Slowly Moving Up?

Over the past two weeks, I have a number of indications that Bill Richardson might be slowly migrating out of the so-called "second tier." First, the long-term trends on the Dailykos straw poll show Richardson, slowly, but consistently, rising since last May. He has risen in four consecutive straw polls, a feat no other candidate has been able to match. In the most recent straw poll he actually rose from 5% to 7%, despite "other" and "no clue" being introduced as options (he actually had 6.79%, but the poll always rounds down). When rounding is taken into account, every other candidate either stayed the same from the January poll, or dropped in overall percentage. Additionally, and for whatever it might be worth, he wins every single Pajamas Media poll for Democratic candidates. He also is in a clear second place among 2008 candidates when it comes to Act Blue fundraising, so far pulling in $285K. While these are not yet numbers to cause your eyes to boggle, Richardson appears to be steadily gaining a decent netroots following.

Signs of slow Richardson growth are also coming from more traditional areas. National Journal, the ultimate insider magazine, took a poll of insiders where Richardson was the clear choice as the "long-shot" candidate most likely to emerge as a serious contender. Noting that his DNC winter meeting speech was "well-received," Hotline on Call also had him moving into fourth place in their latest 2008 rankings, behind only Clinton, Obama and Edwards. In the latest Gallup national trial heat, Richardson also scored 4%, while every other "second tier" candidate pulled in either 1% or 0%. Much like the Dailykos straw poll, Richardson has risen slowly, but consistently, over their last four surveys.

While this could all merely be a coincidence, the slow Richardson rise has the makings of a real trend. It is happening among insiders and outsiders, among the establishment and the netroots, in real polls and straw polls / online rankings. In a way, it all makes sense, since Richardson has numerous potential "niches" he can fill in order to slowly move his candidacy into the top tier. He is the only westerner in the race. He is one of only two governors in the race. He is the only Latino in the race. He has the longest resume in the race. He also seems to be well liked by libertarians, as I have suggested in the past and as the Pajamas media poll also suggests (consider that Ron Paul is the clear Republican winner in those polls, and you get a sense of the libertarian audience doing the voting). All of these potential niches could allow his campaign to slowly move upward. If they eventually result in him reaching double-digits, quite a bit of money and media attention will follow the resulting sense of viability.

As a final note, before it was stuffed into oblivion today, it should be pointed out that Richardson was only about 2% behind Wesley Clark in the MyDD straw poll. In fact, since that poll was IRV style, as the rounds went on, Richardson actually edged Clark for third place overall. Further, when I conducted a deeper analysis of a MyDD straw poll last year, among current candidates Richardson actually had the fewest last place votes. He might not be the top choice of too many people right now, but no one seems to dislike him. With a very long primary season ahead of us, and the possibility of burn-out taking place when it comes to the virtually over-exposed "top-tier," having no one dislike you could be an important way to start building support. Who knows--in a few months, Richardson could very well emerge as a fresh faced, new top tier contender. I am not saying it will definitely happen, but the possibility certainly seems to be there.



Display:


Re: Richardson Slowly Moving Up? (3.00 / 1)

I'm currently a Richardson guy, subject to change.  He seems like the best combination of ideology, experience, and general competence.  He isn't perfect, but nobody is.


by Lucas O'Connor on Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 06:20:43 PM EST

Re: Richardson Slowly Moving Up? (none / 0)

If Clinton continues the way she has and wins the nomination, Richardson would be the best complement for her as VP candidate for all the reasons stated, but particularly because of his appeal to Latino voters, ability to deliver New Mexico and perhaps a few other mountain states, his foreign policy acumen, friendship with Bill Clinton, having served in the Clinton administration, etc.

I can see him replacing Edwards before too long, perhaps.  Edwards seems to be teetering on the brink of single-digits in many primary polls, is seriously underperforming in the biggest states like California, Florida, New York, Illinois, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania.    


by georgep on Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 06:20:59 PM EST

Re: Richardson Slowly Moving Up? (none / 0)

Let me state that I don't believe Richardson can really enter significantly into the upcoming duel between HRC and Obama, but if he could he would certainly make a good candidate all by himself.  As it is, he would probably be the top VP candidate for HRC and on a short list for Obama.  


by georgep on Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 06:23:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Richardson Slowly Moving Up? (none / 0)

Seems to me that, aside from HRC, Biden, and Dodd, everyone is going to be looking for VP with experience.


by Lucas O'Connor on Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 06:26:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Richardson Slowly Moving Up? (none / 0)

True, but Richardson would complement Clinton like no other.  Of the pool of current candidates there is no better VP candidate for Clinton than Richardson.  A hint for what may be to come would be to look at Richardson's statements regarding HRC (the frontrunner.)  If he treads lightly, he may be eyeing the VP slot.  

Could do worse than having Bill Clinton as a quasi-president working on balancing the budget again with Richardson as a very influential VP.  Just MHO, and I know it is not a very popular one around these parts.  :-)


by georgep on Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 06:39:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Richardson Slowly Moving Up? (3.00 / 1)

It makes sense except for this: Hillary would be picking a Bill Clinton cabinet member.  I'm wary of an image of cronyism.


by Lucas O'Connor on Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 07:04:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Richardson Slowly Moving Up? (3.00 / 1)

This would make things much more interesting.  Hillary has the Iraq millstone around her neck now and Obama may flare out (reading the Audacity of Hope hasn't thrilled me yet).

Richardson has some great credentials for what we'll be facing in 2009 & if people start noticing his foreign policy successes, executive experience as Governor and "Westerness" he might seriously move up.   I've read a couple items that indicate he may have to deal with sexual harassment issues -- any substance to that?


by NeoLeftist on Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 06:28:13 PM EST

Re: Richardson Slowly Moving Up? (none / 0)

This is probably what you're talking about.

So, the question is whether or not he's truly a skeevy chauvenist, or just a bit annoying. The only big citation is this:

"He pokes me," Denish said when confronted about photos taken of Richardson and her at an appearance in Bernalillo in late October. "He pinches my neck. He touches my hip, my thigh, sort of the side of my leg."

Sounds kinda bad, but then:


Lt. Gov. Diane Denish on Monday seemed to back away from statements she made in an Albuquerque newspaper article about Gov. Bill Richardson touching her.

"She thinks the quotes were out of context," Denish chief of staff Chris Cervini said Monday, saying the story in Saturday's Albuquerque Journal made the governor's behavior sound "more nefarious than the way she wanted to bring it across."
...
Asked for examples of quotes being used out of context, Cervini said when Denish described Richardson's behavior as "annoying," her full description was "annoying like a little brother or a classmate."

You know, it always surprises me how weird grown men my parents age are around women. Truly is a different world. Without more, I can't render any kind of judgement on Richardson, and without something actually morally heinous I probably won't. I love women, but I've done 'em wrong too, and I don't think that makes me a bad person or unfit.

Moreove, on the meta-topic of sexual scandal (not criminal) from, I think we jump at shadows too much. America is ready to accept that leader have libidos, and make mistakes. They were when Bill was in office, but he (and this is characteristic) lacked the will to actually fess up. If he had, the latter two years of his presidency would have been productive and who knows what else (President Gore?). It would have been a step forward for all of us. But he copped out and tried to duck it. Bad move. Hopefully others will learn from that.


Me | My Work | Future Majority
by Josh Koenig on Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 11:10:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

New Mexico POV (3.00 / 3)

It's kind of hard to back away and see this from the national perspective, living in New Mexico.  We get extensive coverage of every little thing Richardson does.  When he announced, there was a big winter storm in New Mexico; the only news that night was of the storm and Richardson announcing.

It seems to me, locally at least, that Richardson has the support of moderate and conservative Democrats.  The liberal wing of the Democrat party is pretty split on him.  Some look at his sparkling gay rights record, while others blast him for stuff he did while part of Clinton's staff.  

Richardson is good at framing the debate.  If he can make the debate about who should be the next President based on experience, he will win hands down.  And I believe that if he wins the primary, he will easily win the general.  So if he can frame the debate as "vote for the Dem that can win!" he will also have a chance.

Not that he is the ONLY one who can win, but I think he would win in a landslide.

Of course, like I said, I am pretty inundated with Richardson coverage.  And I actually believe him when he says he doesn't want to be VP or SoS; he wants to be in charge.


New Mexico politics from the local perspective.
by fbihop on Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 06:28:34 PM EST

Re: New Mexico POV (3.00 / 0)

Richardson is currently number two on my list.  Just wondering, where did he stand on Iraq in '02?  That's not a deal breaker for me, but it could determine how far he gets with Liberals now.  Plus, it would be a help for him vis a vis Obama.


by MassEyesandEars on Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 06:52:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Richardson Slowly Moving Up? (3.00 / 1)

It may be worth noting that Bill Richardson is definitely getting the attention of activists in NH.

Many of my activist friends are talking about him, they're excited about being able to see him when he makes a trip here this weekend.

I plan on seeing him too.  Maybe i'll have a better idea if i'll support him by then.


Blue Hampshire, a progressive online community for the Granite State.
by nhcollegedem on Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 06:34:42 PM EST

Re: Richardson Slowly Moving Up? (none / 0)

Wouldn't you know it.  The day I drop Richardson for Obama is the day he gets some love from MYDD.  


by aiko on Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 06:35:59 PM EST

I reckon that if he can trump Vilsack's ... (none / 0)

... recently announced Energy policy with a roll out of a more serious energy plan that panders to many of the same groups without giving so darn much of the Energy Independence game away, he'll be able to pull in some of the "pining for Gore" support.


The words of the prophets are written on the subway halls
   and tenement halls
by BruceMcF on Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 06:37:48 PM EST

Re: I reckon that if he can trump Vilsack's ... (3.00 / 1)

Unless Gore runs, I think Richardson will own the energy debate. He's got a really good record on it in NM, and he's able to meld it with his fluency on foreign policy issues to make it a really compelling policy position.

To me, that's his strongest point, and, judging from the stuff I've seen from him so far, he intends to ride that horse pretty hard.


by BriVT on Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 08:21:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I reckon that if he can trump Vilsack's ... (none / 0)

I'm not waiting to see whether he owns the debate, I'm waiting to see where he drives it. I'm expecting Okay, but great would be even better.

If Richardson and Edwards are close enough to what Gore would want, I would not be shocked if Gore stays out of the race and keeps his focus on issue campaigning instead.

But I see the NYU Law School speech as a clear challenge that there had better be some real sustainable energy policy set forward, or else it might force his hand.


The words of the prophets are written on the subway halls
   and tenement halls
by BruceMcF on Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 11:30:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Stronger Support in Texas (none / 0)

Interestingly, Richardson is tied for second in the Burnt Orange Report users straw poll for Texas voters (which can't be stuffed easily since it's only registered users). Edwards is just ahead of him. If Texas were to move it's primary up to Feb 5th as could happen, Richardson might find some friendly territory in a very rich delegate state.


Follow Texas Politics at Burnt Orange Report
by KTinTX on Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 06:38:28 PM EST

Re: Richardson Slowly Moving Up? (none / 0)

I am surprised he doesnt get more support from the netroots.  If Gore doesnt run, i dont think we have  a better candidate than Richardson.  He has experience in foreign policy, he has by far the best resume.  I was under the impression that he just didnt have much personality, but hearing him speak,  i think he does have personality, likeability and definitely a guy i can see standing up to the Republicans.  He was never a supporter of the war, which in my opinion, catapults him above Edwards and HRC.  His speeches have a lot of substance, which in my opinion, puts him above Obama (who i think has a chance, but has a lot to prove first).


by DocD on Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 06:43:35 PM EST

What's holding me back. (none / 0)

Okay, I know I'm being lazy because probably the only thing holding me back from being a Richardson supporter is studying his record as governor(what bills did he sign, veto, and fight for or against)  Also, I'd like to read up on his past campaigns.  Did he help Democrats further down the ticket.  Does he use DLC tactics of bashing fellow dems and Liberal straw men arguments?  (Not suggesting he is DLC, just asking if he employs similar tactics)

I put him first in this poll, but he's a very soft first in front of Edwards.


by maddogg on Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 06:55:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

my husband likes Richardson (none / 0)

He likes to support governors. He was interested in Warner and now is leaning toward Richardson.

I'm for Edwards, but Richardson might be my second choice at this time. He would certainly be an asset to any ticket and any administration.

I do have concerns about some things I read about Richardson's volatile temper and demeaning comments about women. Of course, Bill Clinton also had a bad temper, but they were able to keep that out of the media for the most part.


Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.
by desmoinesdem on Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 06:54:17 PM EST

Re: my husband likes Richardson (none / 0)


but they were able to keep that out of the media for the most part.

Was this line meant to be snark?  Because the right wing couldn't stop talking about it during his first presidential campaign.  Jennifer Flower anyone?  I think the reason it didn't hurt was because Republicans said, "he has no morals", and he said, "Americans have no jobs".  Candidates, especially presidential candidates, would be well served to remember that successful campaigns concentrate on people, not themselves.
by maddogg on Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 06:59:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I meant the part about his temper (none / 0)

Stephanopoulos wrote about it later, and it is described in Primary Colors, but I think the general public heard very little about the fact that Clinton used to blow up at his staff quite regularly. Volcanic anger.

I'm not talking about Gennifer Flowers and all that crap about his morals.


Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.
by desmoinesdem on Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 08:40:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: my husband likes Richardson (none / 0)

I've looked into Richardson a lot (I have a thing for research of my political choices), and I've seen a couple of things: he has a temper, but it's not outlandish. He's no worse than, say, Dean or Clinton in that regard (I've actually seen both those guys get frothing mad) and seems better than Clinton, at least. Frankly, most of the Presidents I know much about all seemed to have tempers, except Lincoln. But Lincoln is pretty much the American secular saint, so what are ya gonna do?

As for the women stuff, I honestly think that's a whisper campaign. The guy got confirmed twice by a GOP Senate that was desperate to hang the Clinton Administration with female-related scandals and nothing was ever brought up. I hear he's a physical guy, putting students in headlocks, lightly punching folks on the shoulder, that kind of thing ... but I've come to the conclusion that the women rumors are pretty much a smear. fwiw, he calls them "mean-spirited rumors with no basis" ...


by BriVT on Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 08:35:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: my husband likes Richardson (none / 0)

FWIW Lincon was almost certainly a sufferer of clinical depression.

So that's about even w/a temper in my book.

Really, nobody who's all that interesting has a median-of-the-bell-curve psych profile. It's all a matter of whether or not they can make it work.


Me | My Work | Future Majority
by Josh Koenig on Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 11:14:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: my husband likes Richardson (none / 0)

Really, nobody who's all that interesting has a median-of-the-bell-curve psych profile. It's all a matter of whether or not they can make it work.

I agree totally. It's one reason why I'm not all that concerned about charges of "temper" and things like that when it comes to politicians. I want effectiveness as a political figure. And for that effectiveness put toward goals I share. I'll most likely never have to share a house with Richardson, so what do I care?


by BriVT on Fri Feb 16, 2007 at 08:01:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Richardson Slowly Moving Up? (none / 0)

I got a 100$ that says if gore doesnt run richards is the next president.


by idahojim on Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 07:02:55 PM EST

Re: Richardson Slowly Moving Up? (none / 0)

Hi everyone,
I like Richardson, and when I voted put him ahead of everyone except Obama and 'other'. I'm curious how many others put 'other' high because in their minds (as in minds) they read 'other' as Al Gore. I think Gore / Richardson, Obama / Richardson are powerful tickets. And I think all of this, though fun adn fascinating, is just the beginning of the dance, when Gore decides whether he's in or out, that's when we'll have a better sense of it all.
by shoeless on Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 07:03:49 PM EST

Re: Richardson Slowly Moving Up? (none / 0)

Richardson is probably the only second-tier candidate with a shot at breaking into the first tier.

as it stands, he will probably drop out early on, either before Iowa or if he doesn't make a decent showing in Nevada. then he'll be on any nominee's short list for VP, or Secretary of State in the next Democratic administration.


by johnny longtorso on Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 07:05:41 PM EST

he won't drop out before Nevada (none / 0)

not a chance.


Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.
by desmoinesdem on Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 08:41:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Track record of blog polls? (none / 0)

What is the predictive value of the polls on websites with fairly narrow demographics such as KOS and MyDD?

I know candidates I support usually end up as underdogs.

Most recent poll here shows Edwards leading while all the scientific polls show Clinton leading and Edwards a struggling third.


by BrionLutz on Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 07:14:02 PM EST

Re: Track record of blog polls? (none / 0)

I can't speak for Chris or Kos, but the point of these polls doesn't seem to be to predict anything. Instead, it's to gain information about who the users of the websites support, and to guage who the netroots as a whole might be supporting.

And that's useful information. Which would a campaign prefer-- a clear majority among the dedicated activist wing of the party, who'll go out and make the case for them, or a clear majority among people who may or may not go out and vote in the primaries?


Walberg Watch - Following Radical Conservative Rep. Tim Walberg in MI-07
by Fitzy on Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 07:25:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Track record of blog polls? (none / 0)

"...but the point of these polls doesn't seem to be to predict anything."

Then why speak of trends about candidates moving up in these polls?  I enjoy the polls as an indicator of what a small but active demographic thinks but probably a good idea to keep some perspective that this is a very skewed demographic.

On Richardson, an odd but true problem for him is he needed to do something about his weight.  His image is that of a sidekick vs. the hero.

He'd be a good Secretary of State choice.


by BrionLutz on Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 07:41:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Well (none / 0)

Okay, this teaches me the much-needed lesson of making sure I've clearly identified my thought before I start typing.

What I meant was, these polls don't seem meant to predict electoral results. You asked about the track record of blog polls, and I took that to mean you wanted to know how many times the predicted DKos/MyDD/other poll winner went on to win X election. I really doubt anyone would say, "As goes Kos, so goes the nation" or anything like that.

It might be a skewed demographic that's being polled in relation to the country as a whole, but candidate trends within this small population, I think, are still useful. What I should have said was, the polls don't predict any electoral results, instead they indicate changes in activist support.

I think that's certainly worth measuring, even if it doesn't necessarily predict final outcomes.


Walberg Watch - Following Radical Conservative Rep. Tim Walberg in MI-07
by Fitzy on Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 08:00:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Well (none / 0)

"I think that's certainly worth measuring, even if it doesn't necessarily predict final outcomes."

I love them and participate but when folks start taking these polls and extrapolate that Richardson is moving up to 2nd tier status it gets a bit of an eye roll.

Even real changes in the real polls from 2% to 5% are kind of like frog leg twitches.


by BrionLutz on Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 08:10:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

A limited measure of activist sentiment (none / 0)

I think that these polls are useful at a couple of levels:  first, they are a measure of "mind-share" of on-line communities. Mind-share on a site like MyDD or DailyKos will translate into volunteers, organizers,  and early small donors.  As we saw with Howard Dean and Wes Clark in 2004, these are real advantages.

The second value of it is a measure of "how well organized" on-line supporters are.  "Freep"ing of polls is annoying, but it does tell you what campaigns are paying attention.  It's been important for the Obama and the Edwards people this time around.  If we start seeing Richardson people doing similar, it's a sign they are getting organized, and bear watching.


by Rob Thorne on Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 08:26:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I like Bill Richardson (none / 0)

I like him. To me at least, he comes across as genuine, but practical. He doesn't exude "vision" like some other candidates, but he acts like the sort who'll take office and solve problems.

I predict that Richardson will pick up strength after they start holding debates. His experience will shine through, and he'll be able to point to a clear resume-- House, UN, Energy Secretary, and Governor-- while Dodd and other "experience" candidates will just be able to point to a long Senate career. I suspect he'll debate on issues, not vision for America, but that has a certain appeal.

That said, I'm not ready to support him. Obama, Edwards, Clark, Richardson, and (even though he's not running) Gore are my top tier, but no one has won my support yet. If Michigan held its caucuses tomorrow, I'd either stay home out of indecision or look for a way of "writing-in" Russ Feingold.


Walberg Watch - Following Radical Conservative Rep. Tim Walberg in MI-07
by Fitzy on Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 07:21:33 PM EST

Re: Richardson Slowly Moving Up? (none / 0)

have you seen this richardson commercial from 2006?


by tpiddy on Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 07:25:59 PM EST

Are you kidding me?!? (none / 0)

Richardson's just the breath of fresh air we need, a candidate that's for:


  • the death penalty
  • mandatory three-strikes sentencing
  • tax breaks for the rich
  • school vouchers
  • churches providing welfare services
  • prison instead of rehab for drug offenses
  • increased military spending, and
  • unfettered free trade

Oh wait, no, that's not a breath of fresh air.  That's a Republican.


Dennis Kucinich, Progressive Democrat for President in 2008
by hoose on Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 07:44:08 PM EST

Re: Are you kidding me?!? (none / 0)

If you actually read the link you provided, you would see that he actually opposes school vouchers. I'm not sure where you get "tax breaks for the rich" or "unfettered free trade" either.

I'm not saying he is perfect. There are clearly stances in there I disagree with. there is also a lot of good stuff too. the point is, if you are going to attack someone, at least be accurate when you are doing it.
by Chris Bowers on Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 08:00:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Are you kidding me?!? (none / 0)

I'm scratching my head at the "at least be accurate" remark...

I'll stipulate the record on school vouchers is murky.  In the '96 NPAT he was for them.  On his web site in '02 he was against them.  (source)

For "tax breaks for the rich": scroll down to "Favors  topic 11: Decrease overall taxation of the wealthy".  The text reads: "Continue to cut taxes and reform the tax code.  Reduce income tax; create Taxpayer Bill of Rights." with supporting links.

For "unfettered free trade": scroll down to "Strongly Favors  topic 13: Support & expand free trade."  The text reads "NAFTA critically important for US as well as Mexico.  Expand regional trade with Chihuahua.  Supports NAFTA, GATT, & WTO" with supporting links.


Dennis Kucinich, Progressive Democrat for President in 2008
by hoose on Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 08:17:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Are you kidding me?!? (none / 0)

So, essentially you are saying that because he was in favor of vouchers at one point in his life, that means is he for vouchers forever? Puh-leeze.
by Chris Bowers on Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 08:44:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Are you kidding me?!? (none / 0)

Wow.  I said it's murky.  I pointed out that he was against them in '02.  That's a very different thing from saying "because he was in favor of vouchers at one point in his life, that means is he for vouchers forever."  It means that it is, at this point in time, unclear to me.  

I don't get where all the emotion is coming from -- re you taking out poll-rage on Kucinich and Dodd supporters?  If so, I'm happy to be of service.


Dennis Kucinich, Progressive Democrat for President in 2008
by hoose on Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 09:04:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Are you kidding me?!? (none / 0)

You're cherry-picking. For instance, yr link sez:

Drug Courts and treatment instead of incarceration. (Oct 2002)
Mandatory jail sentences for selling illegal drugs. (Nov 1996)

And you say "prison instead of rehab for drug offenses."

That's willfully misrepresenting you supporting evidence.


Me | My Work | Future Majority
by Josh Koenig on Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 11:20:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Are you kidding me?!? (none / 0)

Actually, we're both making the same mistake of trying to fit a big statement into a sound-bite.  The supporting item is:


My goal is to see an adequate number of Drug Courts in each of the state's judicial districts. Under my proposal, first-time, non-violent offenders who are arrested for drug or alcohol related crimes-as an alternative to incarceration- must adhere to a strict regimen of treatment, counseling, tests, community service, and hearings. If the offender misses a step, he or she has to pay fines and do jail time. Participants must pay for the program as they are able, and the court will determine the individual's ability.

Many national studies have shown the same thing: drug courts work. Graduates have a far less chance of re-arrest than if they were sentenced and then released, or just put on probation. Drug courts are the first step towards reducing addiction rates and criminal activity. But they must be accompanied by expansion of our treatment facilities, throughout NM. In the long term, this policy will lead to savings in prosecution and jail costs.

Source: Campaign web site, RichardsonForGovernor.com, "Priorities" Oct 24, 2002 (quoted here)

The bolds are mine.  So, I think it's reasonable to take from this that there are cases where he prefers treatment and cases where he prefers incarceration.  Which is fine -- he gets to think whatever he wants.  But we have a responsibility to get to know the candidates positions, and not let 08 be a beauty contest.


Dennis Kucinich, Progressive Democrat for President in 2008
by hoose on Fri Feb 16, 2007 at 12:01:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Are you kidding me?!? (none / 0)

Ya he originally supported school vouchers.  But as he typically does when he hears more about the issues, he moderated his stance.

And I haven't seen anything about tax breaks for the rich.  He has given tax breaks, but my understanding has been that it is for the middle class more than anything else.

And you already mentioned about the prison/rehab that its murky and it changes per situation.

And we should have a lot of military spending- that isn't a Republican thing.  I bet Wes Clark would agree, too.  Its just that both would agree that war is a final resort, which is the important thing.

I'm not dissappointed with your insistance to debate issues that Richardson has.  But I disagree with your idea of putting out issues as if they are black and white when they are not, and then simply saying that he sounds like a Republican.  I trust that the Democrats in New Mexico would not have nominated a Republican so often.


~Michael Hurta
by Michael Hurta on Fri Feb 16, 2007 at 12:11:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Are you kidding me?!? (none / 0)

I found two articles on his tax programs: http://www.cato.org/dailys/03-10-03.html and http://www.governor.state.nm.us/prioriti es-taxes.php?mm=4 .  An obvious caveat is that Cato is obviously pro-tax-breaks-for-the-rich.

My notes have Obama, Edwards, Clark, Biden, Gore, Richardson and Vilsack as all being for more military spending.  With Kucinich, Clinton, Dodd, Nader, Feingold against.  (I know x and y aren't running: they're just useful comparisons.)

I believe there are fundamental democratic party principles that we should at least keep track of.  There's no real reason to think the list at OnTheIssues.org are better than anybody else's, but it does have two things going for it: it goes back a few years, and it at least tries to look at governors' positions.

Anyway, unless something drastic happens, I'm out of the "Richardson's ideology" business.  But if you do support him, I think you owe it to yourself to at least discuss it amongst yourselves.


Dennis Kucinich, Progressive Democrat for President in 2008
by hoose on Fri Feb 16, 2007 at 01:07:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Are you kidding me?!? (none / 0)

Just to clear up your perception that Clark would be for "more military spending."

http://www.awesclarkdemocrat.com/2006/06 /reminder_general_wesley_clark.htm


by jen on Fri Feb 16, 2007 at 10:58:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Richardson Slowly Moving Up? (none / 0)

I love having Richardson as an option....


by 2manychefs on Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 08:30:15 PM EST

Re: Richardson Slowly Moving Up? (none / 0)

He seems like a candidate made for a brokered convention, as he seems to bring something of everything to the table. And certainly, he looks like the most likely one in the second tier to break out, but I still don't see it as that likely because his candidacy seems at the moment to be mostly based on who he is and what his resume is, rather than on some big vision he could get a movement around.

I think the most likely outcomes are a) he gets VP or a cabinet job or b) he's serious about not wanting a cabinet job and uses the run mostly to boost his profile so he can run again in 2012 or 2016.


Visit Forgotten Countries, my new foreign policy-based blog
by Englishlefty on Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 08:39:23 PM EST

Re: Richardson Slowly Moving Up? (none / 0)

I look at him as a sort of second choice for almost everyone. He is the resume candidate, and as someone mentioned above, I to think he wins in an absolute landslide. I could clearly see him having huge coat-tails as well.

I am a HUGE Gore fan, and if Gore runs, he is my choice, but I look at the rest of the field, and while any of them would be ok, and would get my vote, I really look at Richardson as the guy that could win in a cake walk, and I am in the mood for a cake walk.


by benjamink on Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 10:10:08 PM EST

Re: Richardson Slowly Moving Up? (none / 0)

My thanks to Chris Bowers for his poll.

It reaffirms some thoughts that I have had of late.  Like others, I listed Richardson first followed by Edwards and Obama.  HRC came in fourth.  Thusly, as a Chicano from the Sonoran Desert, I have to contend with a GOP that is both brutal and harsh in its use of politics and ultimately, they leave no stone unturned.

Perhaps, in a self-defensive mechanism, I am currently doing my research in a pending internet debate that I will have with Dr. John Fonte of the Hudson Institute.  Dr. Fonte, has, for me and in which I think will be, the 'moment of truth' for Democrats in 2008.  To wit, the notional of the "civic-conservativism" should it be adopted by the Right, and likely will.  Consider this notional for another successful "magic carpet ride" and which could prove devastatingly effective to Democrats--regionally and nationally.

Marcos Moulitas and others have defined it for the Democrats as a "libertarian Democrat" and for which I agree since my politics is premised on regionalism or the Rocky Mountain and Western States.  And if time permits, check it out, and lest I forget, the notional is a two-parter.

With this in mind, HRC is out, Edwards has his Two Americas that needs further refinement, Obama speaks to it in his book but needs to further "illuminate" and Richardson can speak to it in a personalized abundance given his political track record and resume.

Consequently, Moulitas and Bowers need to spend a much greater amount of time and effort, to inform us all of what is just off the radar screen or around the next street corner, otherwise getting mugged and not understanding why, can be painful.

Respectfully Submitted,


by Jaango on Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 10:25:20 PM EST

Re: Richardson Slowly Moving Up? (none / 0)

I'm one of those that have moved Richardson to the top tier. I thought he gained the most of all the candidates from speaking at the DNC winter meeting. His gubernatorial record is impressive. He's clearly going to keep moving up. If I had to wager, and the field remained the same (I'm hoping it doesn't), I'd bet on Vilsack winning in Iowa and Richardson winning in Nevada.


by Jerome Armstrong on Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 11:30:13 PM EST

Re: Richardson Slowly Moving Up? (none / 0)

When I looked at the results of the straw poll before Chris posted about the ballot-stuffing, I noticed that Richardson survived into the top 4. Every other choice (including "Other" and "Unsure") was eliminated before Richardson except Clinton, Obama, and Edwards. I think, like most candidates, he needs to kick it up in terms of online organizing, but he's got a chance.


by tetraminoe on Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 11:54:21 PM EST

Richardson in the Future (none / 0)

Richardson is actually in a very interesting position. He is clearly the dark horse candidate to watch.    

As I see it, the only way he can find a path to the nomination is by pulling off a surprise first or second place finish in Iowa, Nevada or New Hampshire, something that I heard him more or less acknowledge in a recent interview.  So...as time goes by, we will get a better idea of how well Richardson is polling in these early states.  If the polls show him moving up, his chances will assuredly increase.  

Should he pull off a surprise finish in Iowa, NH or Nevada, he can try to parlay that result into bigger things in states like Florida, California or Texas.  Still, without a massive infusion of money, I think he will have a very hard time "spreading the word" about his candidacy into these states.  By contrast, Hillary Clinton will have tons of money to use in these states, and I suspect, she would bury him.  

The easy combination of Richardson into the Hillary Clinton campaign (he really likes the Clintons and vica versa) may give the netroots some pause in supporting him.  

I tend to view Richardson as the candidate with a very good resume and solid political skills.  But...I do not see him as the strongest progressive, or to use Trippi's phrase, a transformational candidate.  He is very much of a transactional candidate.  In fact, I cannot see how a Richardson presidency has any possibility of ushering in a golden age of progressive policies, as perhaps an Edwards or an Obama presidency might...depending, in some measure, upon how they run their campaigns.  


by Demo37 on Fri Feb 16, 2007 at 02:24:51 AM EST

Re: Richardson in the Future (none / 0)

Tend to agree. Even doing well in jan isn't going to produce the funds needed to compete on Feb 5th. Richardson needs to be top 3 in the polls in the autumn so he can raise the cash to be viable on Feb 5th. On current trend lines that means 15%. Movement in MyDD and DailyKos straw polls is nice but he needs to find 10% in just over 6 months just to be in the game; a tough ask.


by kundalini on Fri Feb 16, 2007 at 05:48:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Richardson Slowly Moving Up? (none / 0)

Note to Bowers.... Edwards also showed growth in four consecutive straw polls...in fact, starting a month before Richardson. He only dropped this month.


by LnGrrrR on Fri Feb 16, 2007 at 12:24:24 PM EST

ActBlue (none / 0)

Might be worth pointing out that Richardson has only raised $125 on ActBlue in the last 6 days.  Not too impressive.


http://www.actblue.com/page/asaslist
by asahopkins on Fri Feb 16, 2007 at 01:14:07 PM EST

Re: My reason for liking him (none / 0)

I admit all the good things already stated, but for me, one of the biggest things he's done that I think shows vision, is the Spaceport America deal he's doing.  


by Ferris Valyn on Fri Feb 16, 2007 at 08:13:34 PM EST

Re: Richardson Slowly Moving Up? (none / 0)

p1 p2 p3 p4 p5 p6 p7 p8 p9 p10 p11 p12 p13 p14 p15 p16 p17 p18 p19 p20 p21 p22 p23 p24 p25 p26 p27 p28 p29 p30 p31 p32 p33 p34 p35 p36 p37 p38 p39 p40 p41 p42 p43 p44 p45 p46 p47 p48 p49 p50 p51 p52 p53 p54 p55 p56 p57 p58 p59 p60 p61 p62 p63 p64 p65 p66 p67 p68 p69 p70 p71 p72 p73 p74 p75 p76 p77 p78 p79 p80 p81 p82 p83 p84 p85 p86 p87 p88 p89 p90 p91 p92 p93 p94 p95 p96 p97 p98 p99 p100


by marine tt on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 08:55:34 AM EST

Re: Richardson Slowly Moving Up? (none / 0)

Richardson works with me as long as he is to replace this old president of USA that played all the tickets he had and, being a president, he won. I want to see, first, what Richardson does and there is no other way to find it out, but to sustain him.
by Nunumarc on Wed Sep 26, 2007 at 12:02:41 PM EST

Re: Richardson Slowly Moving Up? (none / 0)

A short anorexia treatment and Richardson will be as good as new or maybe this is just a strategy to stay low and then suddenly hit the opposition so hard that it will never recover.


by tiberiu on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 02:02:01 PM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.