You want Richardson to be nominated: Yes, Maybe, Doubtful, nor No

Continuing the series started yesterday, when I wrote:

The poll system at Daily Kos is too limited, because we can only choose one answer to one question. I think we'd benefit from knowing more about how we collectively feel about the presidential hopefuls.

So I'll start this off by asking about HRC. If other people add similar diaries with polls on other candidates, I'll edit and link to them. Ideally, we should have the same wording on question and answers for each candidate.

It's Richardson's turn. To express your opinions of other candidates, go to the other diaries to vote on Clinton, Edwards, Clark, Obama, Gore, Kucinich, and Vilsack. We still need polls on Kerry, Biden, Dodd, and Warner.

•  Tip Jar

  I'll add links to the others up here as they get created. But I'll be out most of this evening.

  by Dvd Avins on Mon Dec 18, 2006 at 02:22:03 PM PDT

•  hmmm....

  ...this one I am completely neutral about so I can't really answer that poll.

  I don't think I know enough about him to have an opinion.

  by DawnG on Mon Dec 18, 2006 at 02:33:36 PM PDT

  •  so do some research

    he has been an ambassador, cabinet member, congressional staffer, congressman, AND governor. he has massive amounts of foreign policy experience. the man may just be the most experienced democrat running. i like him more and more. plus he is from the west!

    by missreporter on Mon Dec 18, 2006 at 03:57:03 PM PDT

    •  if he announces...

      ...THEN I'll research him.  Right now he's just "reconsidering". :)

      by DawnG on Mon Dec 18, 2006 at 05:12:43 PM PDT

•  VP Maybe, But Richardson Failed Dems in NM...

  I lived in NM for 4 years at a time of continuing transition from rural to urban. Richardson did just fine for himself then, but failed to help progressives at all. This year when a very popular governor can't help his AG (Madrid) win against a vulnerable Republican, in the only urban area of his state, he shows a singular lack of draw. VP maybe, but falls way short outside of his familiar venue.  

  by vetfordean on Mon Dec 18, 2006 at 03:17:26 PM PDT

  •  Madrid couldn't compete

    against Wilson's negative attack ads.

    It was Patsy Madrid that couldn't put it over the top.

    Bill got 70% of the vote in my county that has a 2 to 1 republican registration advantage.

    by ROGNM on Mon Dec 18, 2006 at 03:43:46 PM PDT

    •  Rog, you are right...

      her ads were negative, but Patsy gave Heather so much to work with.  

      by liberaltruthsayer on Mon Dec 18, 2006 at 03:51:14 PM PDT

  •  Bullshit.

    Madrid was a corrupt sad sack waste of a candidate who somehow managed to get close despite being the biggest idiot within 500 miles of the 1st Congressional District.  Richardson didn't fail her.  She was unsavable.

    by liberaltruthsayer on Mon Dec 18, 2006 at 03:50:03 PM PDT

    •  this is out of line

      "corrupt" is a big word that shouldn't just be thrown at every candidate you don't like.

      by esquimaux on Mon Dec 18, 2006 at 05:02:07 PM PDT

      •  Corrupt is not that big of a word.

        It is not as big a word as unindicted co-conspirator, which it seems like she might be with regard to the Robert Vigil scandal.

        It is not as big a word as racketeering, which is what it seems she was doing, giving access to lobbyists for money (she said it herself dude.)

        I am a liberal, a lifelong democrat, and I will never again waste a vote on that shell of a human being.  I did this year, and I will carry the shame for life.

        by liberaltruthsayer on Tue Dec 19, 2006 at 10:54:49 AM PDT

•  You want a poll with ratings for every choice?

  Ok, here's one: http://betterpolls.com/...

  by bolson on Mon Dec 18, 2006 at 03:30:49 PM PDT

•  I think he'd be a good

  possible VP cantidate.

  by mariachi mama on Mon Dec 18, 2006 at 04:13:54 PM PDT

•  You need to change the title

  to who do you want nominated. AS it is it's not an unbiased sample. It specifically attracts people who either want him nominated badly, or don't wan't nominated. You also need a no opinion option on the poll.

  by ArkDem14 on Mon Dec 18, 2006 at 04:23:56 PM PDT

•  I'm uncomfortable

  with the Los Alamos security scandals which occurred on his watch as Energy Secretary, both about lost or stolen information and the way Wen Ho Lee was persecuted.

  Alex
  Choose Our President 2008

  by ourprez08 on Mon Dec 18, 2006 at 04:28:16 PM PDT

  •  agree with that

    but I don't think that can be totally blamed on Richardson. They just had another one not long ago, so I tend to think more of it was about Los Alamos than the Energy Dept. As far as Wen Ho Lee, that was something the press really accelerated. The Justice Dept. could have handled it better, but definitely the NYT could have done the same.

    by dougymi on Mon Dec 18, 2006 at 06:29:27 PM PDT

•  Richardson, Richardson, Richardson.

  Yes, Yes, Yes.

  Please nominate him. He has the best resume and is a genuine progressive.

  2008 will go down in history as "the election of the Hispanic voter." If we run Richardson, I see no way to lose.

  We win all the Kerry states, plus New Mexico, Florida, Nevada, and possibly Colorado, Iowa, Ohio... (and Arizona if McCain't doensn't run)

  I recommend Kathleen Sibelius for veep, btw. Then we surely win Iowa, probably Missouri, even Kansas....

  by nicejoest on Mon Dec 18, 2006 at 06:45:09 PM PDT