I put Raines far ahead personally.  Just using stats from Baseball-Reference.com

Lifetime - Avg/OBP/Slg Hits/HR/RBI Runs scored OPS+ SB-CS
Dawson - 279/323/482 2774/438/1591 1373 119 314-109
Rice - 298/352/502 2452/382/1451 1249 128 58-34
Raines - 294/385/425 2605/170/980 1571 123  808-146

Take note on how via OBP Raines is far ahead, but trails in Slg.  That is what is going to kill him next year.  Voters will talk about Rice and his power, Dawson and his power but ignore Raines and his walking/stolen bases.

Raines was amazing, expecially in his prime.  Stole more than 5 bases per time caught (Dawson just under 3-1, still good but not Raines level, Rickey stole 4.2 vs Raines 5.5 bases per time caught, Lou Brock just 3.1 per time caught).  In his peak there was no one else I'd rather have in the 80's, he would beat you via the bases, the long ball, the timely hit, you name it.  Despite not being in the playoffs during his prime he still hit 270/340/349 vs Rice 225/312/366 and Dawson 186/238/237 (ugh). 

If Rice or Dawson gets in while Raines is forgotten (which is what I fear next year) it would be one of the worst HOF votes ever.  I sadly fear Raines getting such a low vote that he ends up being removed from the ballot or put into the Dale Murphy/Dave Parker category (i.e.: always there but never even close).

I know he's running a distant third at 16.41% as I write this, but Rice is getting a ton more support than I expected .... with the two Ex-Pos on the ballot, I figured it'd be 70-28-2 for Raines-Dawson-Rice.

I voted for Raines but I've got to wonder how the voters will deal with his cocaine use during during the 80's. Obviously cocaine isn't a performance enhancer but he admitted to using it during games, and actually slide on his stomach so he wouldn't break the vials in his back pocket. I don't have a problem with him getting in but if voters have a moral problem with McGwire then I don't see them turning a blind eye to what Raines did.

But they already voted in more than a few known, admitted drug users , Molitor comes to mind. Also, cocaine is a performance enhancer, just one with tremendous risks and costs. It's like the amphetamines players (like Barry Bonds, apparently...) still take to this day. Especially after the voting this year, however, there is a good chance of a double-standard coming into play. The writers have groped for the high ground for some reason (I suspect it makes easy stories, and hence laziness/group think are the main factors), and may have to stay there a few years, until something else shiny comes along to distract them.

I don't think many will even think twice about Raines, since he peaked at a severely offensively depressed time (early 80's), in the worst place possible (Montreal) to gain attention. When he gets 30-40% of the vote (just a guess), the next year, a bunch of voters might start looking at him more seriously.

but he admitted to using it during games, and actually slide on his stomach so he wouldn't break the vials in his back pocket.

He was an admitted cocaine user, yes, but this specifically sounds highly dubious. What is the source of this?

He was an admitted cocaine user, yes, but this specifically sounds highly dubious. What is the source of this?

I didn't put a specific link in in because it's general knowledge but it's here half-way through this article by Jerry Crasnick:

During the Pittsburgh drug trials in the early 1980s, Raines testified that he kept a gram of coke in his uniform pocket, snorted during games, and made a point of sliding head-first so as not to break the vial.

Thanks for the link. If I ever knew the gory Raines details, I'm sure I've long ago forgotten.

You don't see it now, but back in the day it was normal to see the circular shape of chewing tobbaco containers in players' back pockets. Perhaps astute fans in the 80's would have noticed the outline of a small tube. What would it be these days? The outline of syringe? A grandy jury indictment? The deed for your new Carribean island courtesy of your newly inked $50M contract?

There's a huge difference between cocaine and steroid use.  Cocaine is not a performance enhancer.  If anything, it is pretty clear from Raines career that his performance improved once he stopped using it. 

It's the difference between Ross Rebigliati and Ben Johnson.

Cocaine may not be a long-term, training regimen performance enahncer, but it could very well enhance performance on a particular day. It jolts you awake, makes you feel confident and happy, makes you concentrate more easily...link. Of course, you build a tolerance to it, it kills your blood vessels, ability to control moods, etc. So long term, yes cocaine is bad (it killed many a HoF-type career). But for a particular day, it would likely help. Which is why drugs are so addictive. They have positive, mostly short term effects. Taking amphetamines every day is awful for health too, but to maximize performance on a particular day, they work.

Anyway, on the topic of the poll, I don't think Raines runs away with it, as Rice and Dawson were very good players, but Raines was slightly better. That slight bit between them appears to me to be the difference between a HoF career and not. If Rice and Dawson made it into the Hall, it wouldn't bother me that much. At this point, I don't think much about the HoF would bother me (election procedure is farcical) though.

I agree that Raines' cocaine use shouldn't prevent him from entering the Hall. I know that if anything it harmed his performance. But if you don't vote for McGwire on moral grounds (ie you can't look your kids in the eye) I don't see how you can vote for Tim Raines. 

Anyway there's a nice piece by Jeff Blair though about Alomar's future Hall bid and it's good to hear that he'll be inducted into the Level of Excellence. Hopefully they announce the date soon.