[Nate tha\\\' Great]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Vilsack, Feingold and Richardson might belong in the "no real shot of winning" camp. I don't mean to sounds like a cynic, but they all seem like the classic "5th place in the New Hampshire primary" candidate.

[/ QUOTE ]

Vilsack, Feingold and Richardson are all between 2%-3% on Tradesports. So that's a fair point. Given that there's 5%-10% chance that one of them end's up being the nominee, perhaps I should have added a 4th category for "Low Probability of Winning Worthy of Mention", although that's not entirely different from the "Guys With No Shot" category. However, I think it's important to distinguish between these three and the likes of Kerry, Biden, and Dodd, who are all strongly considering a run but effectively have no chance (in fairness, Kerry is listed at 2% at Tradesports).

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't necessarily trust Tradesports to be authoritative here, particularly when we're talking about the difference between say .5% and 2.0%.

Richardson has two problems, IMO. He doesn't look presedential, and he's came out a little too firmly for medical marijuana. Neither of those things should be problems, but I think they will be.

Feingold, I think, is simply too liberal. I don't think either party has nominated a true populist since McGovern, and we all know how that went.

Vilsack, I think, lacks the name recognition and isn't "sexy" enough for a presidential nominee.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm fairly certain an "anti-Hillary" effort will be mounted in the Democratic primaries -- and that certainly "anti-Hillary" movement could be manifest itself in the form of support and cash for Vilsack, Feingold, or Richardson. Many of the best empirical studies demonstrate that primary voters are indeed strategic, so if voters are questioning voting for Hillary in the primary because of her electability in the general election, I just don't see Biden/Kerry/Dodd filling that void.

[/ QUOTE ]

If Vilsack, Richardson and Feingold could somehow combine their candidacy, then I think they'd have a shot (at the nomination, maybe not the presidency). But as it stands, it's sort of a catch-22: it's hard for one of them to gain momentum without fundraising, and it's hard for them to get fundraising without momentum.