Yelnoc's Candidate List

[Yelnoc]

I'd move Bachmann to Tier 1 and Gingrich to Tier 2.

Bachmann!  The woman's a lunatic.  And she pissed of the Republicans in Iowa already; something to do with missing a fundraiser.  No, she's just hot air out of pundits' mouth's.

[tmthforu94]

Another Giuliani push...

I'd personally move him to Tier 1. He's even lead in a national poll now. If Pawlenty's up there, who I don't believe has ever even come close to leading nationally, Giuliani should definitely be up there.

[Poundingtherock]

Gay liberal Nate Silver argued that the media should take Herman Cain more seriously as a candidate than supposed "first-tier" candidates like Pawlenty and Huntsman.

I'd agree that Pawlenty should be treated no better than Herman Cain (and if people actually followed Pawlenty, you'd see that he's pretty close to melting down if you go by the comments he's made these last three days).

However, Huntsman is a different animal.  He hasn't been "running" as Pawlenty has been the last two years.  Huntsman has only recently re-entered the political conversation whereas Pawlenty has been referred to as a top-tier candidate for two years without any polling.

Don't get me wrong?  Herman Cain is an absolute clown and was completely destroyed in that debate contrary to what the loons on Frank Luntz's focus group said.  Like Cain, Michele Bachmann is likewise a total joke.  But both deserve more respect than Tim Pawlenty.

Huntsman does actually have serious potential to win New Hampshire as he's a strong niche candidate for that state's out-of-touch republican electorate.  One-on-one, Huntsman would absolutely destroy Romney with that state's Republican electorate.  Huntsman is pretty much Romney's nightmare.

[Yelnoc]

Holy sh**t!  You're back.  I thought they banned you, oh Pounder of Rocks!  I am so glad that you have graced me with your GOD-given input!

[Niemeyerite]

Gay liberal Nate Silver argued that the media should take Herman Cain more seriously as a candidate than supposed "first-tier" candidates like Pawlenty and Huntsman.

I'd agree that Pawlenty should be treated no better than Herman Cain (and if people actually followed Pawlenty, you'd see that he's pretty close to melting down if you go by the comments he's made these last three days).

However, Huntsman is a different animal.  He hasn't been "running" as Pawlenty has been the last two years.  Huntsman has only recently re-entered the political conversation whereas Pawlenty has been referred to as a top-tier candidate for two years without any polling.

Don't get me wrong?  Herman Cain is an absolute clown and was completely destroyed in that debate contrary to what the loons on Frank Luntz's focus group said.  Like Cain, Michele Bachmann is likewise a total joke.  But both deserve more respect than Tim Pawlenty.

Huntsman does actually have serious potential to win New Hampshire as he's a strong niche candidate for that state's out-of-touch republican electorate.  One-on-one, Huntsman would absolutely destroy Romney with that state's Republican electorate.  Huntsman is pretty much Romney's nightmare.

people like you make europeans hate the USA because they think every american thinks what you think. your ideas would probably be too radical for the Nazi Party.

[Badger]

FWIW: I think you need to make a Tier 4 for utter joke candidates like Karger and McMillan (as much as Karger seems nice, his candidacy belongs there). Its not fair or accurate to put Santorum in that pack. Roemer? Take your pick....

[Yelnoc]

FWIW: I think you need to make a Tier 4 for utter joke candidates like Karger and McMillan (as much as Karger seems nice, his candidacy belongs there). Its not fair or accurate to put Santorum in that pack. Roemer? Take your pick....

My thinking is that 0 = 0.

[Badger]

FWIW: I think you need to make a Tier 4 for utter joke candidates like Karger and McMillan (as much as Karger seems nice, his candidacy belongs there). Its not fair or accurate to put Santorum in that pack. Roemer? Take your pick....

My thinking is that 0 = 0.

I hears you, but in fairness "1 in 500 chance" doesn't equal zero chance. Roemer, Karger and McMillan et al will NEVER EVER win the nomination; Santorum or Paul could in the longest of long shots and all stars aligned absolutely perfectly.

Basically, I think there's a distinction between a long shot candidacy (note the emphasis) and a joke candidate.

FWIW, with Paul in the race arguably Johnson is now a 4th tier candidate too.

[Yelnoc]

FWIW: I think you need to make a Tier 4 for utter joke candidates like Karger and McMillan (as much as Karger seems nice, his candidacy belongs there). Its not fair or accurate to put Santorum in that pack. Roemer? Take your pick....

My thinking is that 0 = 0.

I hears you, but in fairness "1 in 500 chance" doesn't equal zero chance. Roemer, Karger and McMillan et al will NEVER EVER win the nomination; Santorum or Paul could in the longest of long shots and all stars aligned absolutely perfectly.

Basically, I think there's a distinction between a long shot candidacy (note the emphasis) and a joke candidate.

FWIW, with Paul in the race arguably Johnson is now a 4th tier candidate too.

Oh, alright.  Most of Tier 3 has been moved down a rung.  I also took the liberty of bumping Giuliani down to Tier 3. 

And I think that's a little unfair to Johnson.  If Santorum has a shot, he does.

[Badger]

FWIW: I think you need to make a Tier 4 for utter joke candidates like Karger and McMillan (as much as Karger seems nice, his candidacy belongs there). Its not fair or accurate to put Santorum in that pack. Roemer? Take your pick....

My thinking is that 0 = 0.

I hears you, but in fairness "1 in 500 chance" doesn't equal zero chance. Roemer, Karger and McMillan et al will NEVER EVER win the nomination; Santorum or Paul could in the longest of long shots and all stars aligned absolutely perfectly.

Basically, I think there's a distinction between a long shot candidacy (note the emphasis) and a joke candidate.

FWIW, with Paul in the race arguably Johnson is now a 4th tier candidate too.

Oh, alright.  Most of Tier 3 has been moved down a rung.  I also took the liberty of bumping Giuliani down to Tier 3. 

And I think that's a little unfair to Johnson.  If Santorum has a shot, he does.

Thanks for what I believe improves your fine list.

As for Johnson vs. Santorum, here's my take:

Two term senator of large state > 2 term governor of small state.

Out of office for 5 years but with active fundraising speaking tours and Fox commentator gigs > Out of office for almost a decade and having VERY little subsequent public exposure or political involvement.

A string of hardline policy positions and statements that ruined one's acceptability to swing voters but endeared one's self to cultural warriors > Being a second string Ron Paul without the devoted cult of personality fan base.

With all deference to the impact of tieing for third (with Christie, behind Paul and Romney) in the CPAC straw poll in February and getting Willie Nelson's endorsement, Johnson's only chance to gain any traction whatsoever required both the Pauls passing on a run. With Dr. Ron in, however, I can't imagine how Johnson scavenges even the ghost of a campaign. He may be invited to most debates (maybe, at first), but what's his constituency? Those who agree with Paul's platform but prefer an unknown ex-governor from the 90's as their spokesman?

At least Santorum could theoretically appeal to the "true believer cultural warriors", but he's just too much a has been to strongly compete with newer, hotter commodities like Bachmann and Cain. Still, the difference between a 3rd tier like Santorum and 4th tier joke like Johnson is the difference between "a has been" and "Who?".

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Another shamefull bump, but we can now say that Huntsman can be bolded.

[Yelnoc]

Another shamefull bump, but we can now say that Huntsman can be bolded.

Thanks Sanchez, I kind of forgot about this.  Bachmann and Huntsman are bolded, Bachmann and Perry have been bumped to first tier, while Gingrich is down to third tier.  See any other movements that need to be made?

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Another shamefull bump, but we can now say that Huntsman can be bolded.

Thanks Sanchez, I kind of forgot about this.  Bachmann and Huntsman are bolded, Bachmann and Perry have been bumped to first tier, while Gingrich is down to third tier.  See any other movements that need to be made?

Maybe Thad McCotter can be added to Tier 2 or 3, as a possible candidate, otherwise, the list is perfect

["'Oeps!' De blunders van Rick Perry Indicted"]

Another shamefull bump, but we can now say that Huntsman can be bolded.

Thanks Sanchez, I kind of forgot about this.  Bachmann and Huntsman are bolded, Bachmann and Perry have been bumped to first tier, while Gingrich is down to third tier.  See any other movements that need to be made?

Pataki's made some noises lately, so he should probably be in Tier 3 rather than "Not Running."

[Niemeyerite]

Perry shouldn't be a tier 1. he was polling 5% in the last PPP's texas poll!! and Cain should be tier 1, he's polling better than Palin and Pawlenty!

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

Agreed Perry shouldn't be tier one but Ron Paul should.

[Yelnoc]

Palin and Pawlenty have been bumped down to tier 2.  Palin for disappearing from the spotlight; Pawlenty for continually failing to score well in the polls and connect with voters.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

And what about bumping Ron Paul to tier 1

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

And what about bumping Ron Paul to tier 1

He would need to poll in the top 3, in my opinion, and as much as I like him, I dont think he will reach the top 3 for a while. Another strong performance at the debates (with the addition of Gary Johnson dropping out) should solidify his base and allow him into the top 3.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

Did you see the CNN's omission of Dr. Paul regarding fundraising in the second quarter of this year?

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

McCotter should be added to the list, but is he even in tier 2?

[Yelnoc]

McCotter should be added to the list, but is he even in tier 2?

I'll be generous and say tier 3.