Gov. Bill Richardson is not a top-tier presidential candidate, at least yet.
There are lots of positive signs for the governor’s campaign – he raised $7 million in the second quarter of 2007, he’s roughly tied with John Edwards in New Hampshire, his support has been growing in Iowa – but there are signs that he isn’t yet on par with Edwards, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.
The newest national poll of the Democratic primary race, released today by Rasmussen Reports, has Clinton at 39 percent, Obama at 26 percent, Edwards at 13 percent and Richardson at 5 percent.
The newest poll of New Hampshire Democrats, also released today by Rasmussen Reports, has Clinton at 38 percent in that important primary state, Obama at 21 percent, Edwards at 10 percent and Richardson at 9 percent.
The national poll of 769 likely Democratic primary voters, conducted June 25-28, has a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percent. The New Hampshire survey of 428 likely Democratic primary voters, conducted June 28, has a margin of error of plus or minus 5 percent.
The New Hampshire poll reveals a key division between the three frontrunners and Richardson. Clinton and Obama are viewed favorably by 80 percent of likely Democratic primary voters in that state. Edwards is viewed favorably by 79 percent.
Richardson is viewed favorably by 52 percent, with 31 percent having an unfavorable opinion of him, so even if he won over all who currently have no opinion of him, only 69 percent would view him favorably.
Another indicator that Richardson isn’t yet at the level of the other three is that Rasmussen Reports head-to-head surveys have Clinton, Obama and Edwards doing much better against the GOP frontrunners than Richardson.
Richardson could pass Edwards this quarter
Edwards’ campaign, on a slow decline throughout most of the fundraising quarter that just ended, rebounded significantly in the last week as a result of his public spat with Ann Coulter. Whether that climb was an anomaly or a reversing of the trend has yet to be seen.
But Edwards isn’t currently in a position of power. Clinton and Obama, as senators, and Richardson, as a governor, should have an easier time raising money this quarter. It’s a sad truth, but many give to try to influence the process. If Edwards loses, an investment in his campaign is a loss, but the two senators and governor, if they lose, will still be in important positions.
Clearly, Clinton and Obama have most of the momentum. She’s winning the polls, but he’s winning the money game. Having more donors than Clinton is significant for Obama. People who give money are more likely to vote than people who tell a pollster over the phone which candidate they support.
Obama’s grassroots support – more than 250,000 donors – is also significant for Richardson’s campaign. As the two minority candidates, they are, to some degree, seeking similar supporters. Richardson is trying to run a grassroots campaign with strong Internet support, but Obama is beating him at that game.
I expect Richardson to continue climbing in the polls and posting respectable fundraising totals. His second-quarter fundraising will earn him additional attention. He has caught Edwards in New Hampshire, and has a good shot at passing him in the next few weeks. Who wants to support the candidate whose support is dropping in the polls over the candidate who is climbing?
Current pace won’t catch Clinton, Obama
Richardson might be the candidate who brings Edwards down. But what is the likelihood that he can catch Obama and Clinton?
It’s a long shot. Richardson is putting most of his time and money into Iowa and New Hampshire, betting that strong showings in small states in January will propel him to victory in larger primary states on Feb. 5.
How else can a candidate with less money compete? Obama and Clinton have the cash to compete in the early, smaller primaries in January and on Super Tuesday in February, when so many voters will go to the polls that the nominee will likely be selected that day.
But will voters in the larger states, such as California, Illinois, Florida and New Jersey, care about what voters in Iowa and New Hampshire think? Or, understanding their importance in the new primary calendar and believing that, since they’re larger states, they should have more influence, will they go their own ways and ignore the smaller January contests?
The answer is probably somewhere in between. Even if Richardson were to somehow win Iowa and New Hampshire, that wouldn’t likely be enough. A high percentage of voters around the rest of the nation haven’t heard of Richardson.
Obama is relatively untested. He’s a political newcomer who is in for the most thorough vetting of his life, and we’ll probably learn some interesting facts about him in the coming months. Will any sink his campaign?
Clinton, on the other hand, is as vetted as a candidate can be. Two new books just came out – one that had been in the works for years – and they contained no new information. Voters know Hillary and, right now, they have her in the lead. All she has to do, at this point, is stay consistent.
Can Richardson compete with that? His climb is going to mean that rumors that have dogged him for years are certain to get a more thorough vetting. While trying to catch up in the polls and money game, Richardson will also have to undergo the vetting Clinton has already survived.
About six months in, Richardson’s campaign is on the rise. But the current pace of his climb won’t be enough to propel him to victory in a little more than six months, when the primary contests begin. Don’t count him out, but keep his ascension in perspective.
Gov. Bill Richardson is not a top-tier presidential candidate, at least yet.