|
Hillary Clinton: 80% Why it isn't higher: Miracles happen, especially in politics Why it isn't lower: She's consistently held a commanding lead from square 1, even when she seemed to be faltering.
John Edwards: 10% Why it isn't higher: He's running third, and hasn't shown signs of rising Why it isn't lower: He looks more likely than Obama to pick up momentum in the earliest states to vote, I think.
Barack Obama: 8% Why it isn't higher: I think he's less likely than Edwards to pick up the momentum in Iowa and New Hampshire that would be the only likely cause of a Clinton defeat. Why it isn't lower: He's polling well ahead of Edwards in general. I think he's very likely to finish ahead of Edwards, just not by enough to win.
Al Gore: 1% Why it isn't higher: He doesn't want to run. He doesn't plan to run. He would probably lose to Clinton even if he did run. Why it isn't lower: If by some miracle he were to undergo a complete change of heart and mind and enter the race, and both Obama and Edwards swung behind him, it's not completely inconceivable that he might cause an upset. And I didn't want to get into fractions.
The Field: 1% Why it isn't higher: no-one else has a snowball's chance in hell. Why it isn't lower: miracles happen, and I didn't want to get into fractions.
Incidentally, in the interests of openness, my prejudices are: I think Edwards would probably make the best candidate of the big three, and Obama the second-best, but that any of them would do a fine job; I find myself sneakingly hoping for a Clinton win due to the way some of the criticism of her on DU has put my back up; I think that any of the three viable candidates would do a sufficiently good job, and none of them so much better a one than the others, that I don't really care very much about the outcome of the primary.
|