A bigger straw poll gets a chance to be wrong!

Condi Rice continues to hold a strong lead in our humble 2008 Republican Presidential straw poll, with John McCain running second.

Patrick Ruffini's much bigger one runs afresh every month- but right now I wouldn't bet the farm on its accuracy in predicting the outcome, either.

Patrick has Rudy Giuliani pretty much cleaning the floor with everybody right now, and George Allen coming in second. He also has Rudy winning Iowa, which is just plain nuts; no pro-choice candidate will break double digits come caucus time. Iowa's is one of the most pro-life Republican parties in the nation.

At this point, it's all about name recognition and personal admiration. That Rudy and Condi would do well now is only to be expected; I doubt that either will be much of a factor once the campaign for the 2008 nomination begins in earnest. For one thing, I don't think Condi will run (the same holds true for Colin Powell, who has been quietly coming up on the outside in our straw poll here- once again, his support reflecting more personal admiration and respect, I think, than any real committment to him as a candidate).

I personally voted for Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee in Patrick's poll, but I indicated that I would change my vote (which is actually quite fluid at this stage; I'm the guy who voted for Lindsey Graham in my own poll) in the extremely unlikely event that Fred Thompson ran. I've thought for years that Thompson would make a wonderful president. If that happened- and of course, it won't- I'd be firmly in Thompson's corner. As it is, I'm still shopping. I'm chiefly looking at the question of what pro-life candidate is, first of all, most electable- and, secondly, seems likely to hold up the best in office, not only as a candidate for re-election in 2012 but as the first-term target of an even more frustrated, fanatically partisan opposition than even President Bush has had to put up with.

Huckabee ironically is from- of all places- Hope, Arkansas, Bill Clinton's home town. Hey, one guy from Hope has been bad news for Hillary; maybe another would be, too!

In the absence of more compelling criteria, history can be a helpful guide in picking a candidate. If a Republican is elected in 2008, he will likely be a Southern governor; although Ronald Reagan was, of course, a former governor of California, only one Republican in history has ever been elected President as the incumbent governor of a Northern state- and if the truth be told, they stole the election for Rutherford B. Hayes! Interestingly, before the election of Vice-President George H.W. Bush in 1988, one had to go back to Herbert Hoover- who was, of all things, Secretary of Commerce- to find a Republican who was elected to the presidency while currently holding any other public office whatsoever!

While if his drift rightward on social issues continues, I would find Mitt Romney an attractive candidate, my instincts tell me that if a Republican is going to win in 2008, it's going to have to be either a Southerner or someone from a border state. These states, after all, are key to any Republican victory at the national level, and avoiding Democrat inroads there has to be a higher priority than making them in what have until now been "blue" states. Besides, it's not at all certain that Northerners who have been elected in such states, like Romney or Maryland Governor Bob Ehrlich or New York Governor George Pataki or Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger of California (who is not, of course, currently eligible for the White House anyway, having been born in Austria) could carry them in a Presidential election.

Historically, but especially in recent history, senators are have generally not been very successful candidates for the Presidency. The last sitting senator of either party to be elected president was John F. Kennedy in 1960! It's true, of course, that former senators like Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon have been elected since then. Former holders of all major state and Federal offices other than the Presidency itself seem- surprising as this may be- to have been historically more formidable Presidential contenders than incumbents!

The last sitting member of the House to be elected President was James A. Garfield. Former governors and senators have often been elected, as have cabinet officers; the trouble is that I only one potentially viable candidate- former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich- who fits any of those categories (Powell, Rice, and former Homeland Security Secretary and Pennsylvania Governor Tom Ridge come to mind, too- but all are pro-choice and thus have no chance of receiving the Republican nomination).

Although I may be mistaken, I believe that Grover Cleveland, who was once mayor of Buffalo, New York, is the only former mayor ever to serve as President.

Sitting and former Vice-Presidents have historically been viable candidates, but Dan Quayle certainly won't run again, and I don't think Dick Cheney will run, either. Regrettably, there seem to be no viable Republican generals around at the moment. I have a hard time imagining Tommy Franks as a politician, I'm afraid "Stormin' Norman" Schwartzkopf is probably too old by now- and Colin Powell's views on social issues, once again, would almost certainly disqualify him even if he chose to run.

Meanwhile, Paddy Power, the famous Irish betting site that correctly called both the identity and the name of the new pope (how the more pietistic members of the Roman church must love that fact!) sets the odds on the 2008 Presidential election as follows:

Hillary Clinton 3 - 1
Rudolph Giuliani 6 - 1
Bill Richardson 12 - 1
John Edwards 12 - 1
John McCain 14 - 1
Evan Bayh 14 - 1
Condeleezza Rice 14 - 1
Bill Frist 16 - 1
Tom Ridge 16 - 1
George Allen 20 - 1
Jeb Bush 20 - 1
Rick Santorum 20 - 1
Mitt Romney 20 - 1
Tom Vilsack 25 - 1
George Pataki 25 - 1
Chuck Hagel 25 - 1
Barack Obama 25 - 1
Arnold Schwarzenneger 25 - 1
Tom Daschle 33 - 1
John Kerry 50 - 1

I might as well inveigh on that, too.

Fully forty percent of the electorate state that they will never, under any circumstances, vote for Hillary Clinton for President. This, before she even announces her candidacy. Nor has she much hope from the "undecideds;" according to a recent Gallup poll, only four percent of the electorate have yet to make up their minds about Hillary, pro or con.

Despite all the hype on the Left and the hysteria on the Right, Hillary Rodham Clinton is simply not a viable candidate.

No matter what oddsmakers and the media hype say, no candidate with Sen. Clinton's negative and undecided numbers has a chance of being elected- and only the lunacy of the American nominating system (thanks, George McGovern!) make her the favorite even to win the Democrat nomination. Granted, if every one of the fifty-three percent of the electorate who have a favorable impression of her voted for her, she would be elected handily. But that assumes that every one of them would vote for her, rather than for a hypothetical opponent whom they might see equally or even more favorably. Hillary Clinton is more or less in the position with regard to the presidency that the Chicago Cubs are in as regards the National League Central Division race: not mathematically eliminated, but facing numbers discouraging enough that only her partisan admirers would argue that she actually has a chance.

Actually, Cub fans at this point are probably more realistic than the Hillary supporters either in the media or elsewhere!

Believe it: if the party professionals were still making the call, she wouldn't get the time of day. She has "loser" written all over her, and no matter how conservative bloggers may like to frighten their children with Hillary, she really isn't nearly the threat everybody thinks she is.

And don't be sucked in by the admiring media's gushing over her alleged "move to the Center." Is she trying to change the general perception that she's on the looney, losing Left of her party? You betcha. But that perception is so well established that no matter how the Hillary-friendly media spin it, not enough voters are going to buy the change to make her viable.

I personally think Mark Warner, John Edwards and Evan Bayh are the people to worry about. I'd estimate their chances as being much better than those of the supposed front-runners right now- Hillary, Rudy, Condi, and even John McCain.

It's worth noting, BTW, that the guy most political professionals see as the Republican front-runner is neither Giuliani nor Rice nor McCain, but Sen. George Allen of Virginia. I think he's a formidable candidate for the nomination who might not be the strongest Republican in November, but who would be a long way from the weakest.

But given the volatility of the early going (and it looks like we're going to have another interesting evening here in Iowa in early 2008), don't be surprised by somebody like Newt Gingrich becoming the flavor of the week early in the campaign for the next nomination. The Iowans who show up on caucus night in both parties are quite ideological, and often choose people whose ideas they like even if the media don't approve.

Maybe the media's disapproval might even make them like those people more. People in both Iowa and New Hampshire have a stubborn and even perverse streak that can't be overlooked. We love to throw monkey wrenches into all the pundits' carefully-reasoned scenarios!

Right now, I think it's far too early to say anything but who will not be the Republican nominee- Giuliani, Rice or McCain- and who will not be elected, even though she'll probably be nominated.

Guess who.