Ranking the Democrats

Want to know the magic word in the Democratic presidential race today? Tiers. As in, based on the latest fundraising reports, how do the candidates stack up?

The Wall Street Journal, taking note of the huge sums garnered by Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, says that "an important subtext arising from the latest round of fundraising reports is the growing distance between" those two "and the second-tier candidates.”

The Journal doesn't break it down beyond that, but ABC News does. "The Democratic field looks like it has three tiers now --- Obama and Clinton at the top," John Edwards and Bill Richardson "in the next grouping, and everyone else bringing up the rear," its daily political note opines.

Our favorite, though, comes from NBC News' First Read. It decided to be even more precise, creating five tiers. That would be: "Clinton and Obama in tier 1; Edwards and Richardson in tier 2; (Chris) Dodd and (Joe) Biden in tier 3; (Dennis) Kucinich in tier 4; and (Mike) Gravel on another planet."

Then there's this perspective quote, courtesy of ABC News, from Edwards aide Jonathan Prince,, when asked about such groupings: "Tiers, shmeers."

-- Don Frederick

Photo: Sen. Hillary Clinton; Credit: John G. Mabanglo/EPA

Comments

[Stephen Cassidy]

Isn't the conventional wisdom that the race is divided into tiers a way for editors to justify allocating limited reporter resources to only one or two candidates? If the top tier is Obama and Clinton, then reporters are assigned to cover them and they skip everyone else until the entire group comes together for debates and forums. The tier system says more about the resources newsrooms in America have today than the reality of the race.

The race is wide open among those - Clinton, Obama, Edwards and Richardson - with the money to be competitive in the early voting states. There are not multiple tiers. There are 2 frontrunners and 2 challengers, anyone of which could win. Most voters are not firmly committed to a candidate.