Posted on 09/27/2007 3:52:21 AM PDT by davidosborne
Albeit you and I have politely disagreed in the past I will agree that a Hunter / Thompson or even a Thompson / Hunter team would be a fine Conservative ticket..........
Stay safe ~!
>> I believe all polls should be treated as meaningless.
A convenient position for someone supporting a candidate whose poll numbers are within the margin of error of ZERO.
I wonder if you’d have a similar opinion if Hunter was doing better.
Scientific polls - when questions are correctly drafted, and the sample is large enough and appropriately randomized - are meaningful statistical samples of the opinions of the voting population at large.
Straw polls, internet polls, text-message polls, etc. are not randomized, not scientific, and entirely useless for anything other than entertainment.
The vast majority of the voting population doesn’t care about Duncan Hunter.
H
Okay, so you really don’t know what the Ames straw poll is all about. Fair enough.
Straw polls as a whole are basically meaningless. The Ames poll, however, historically serves as a way for lower tier candidates to get noticed and make their way to the 1st tier. (You know, like Mike Huckabee managed to do from his performance at Ames???!!!)
So, the idea was for Duncan Hunter to do well there and get noticed. And he showed up to campaign. Know where he finished? Well, after participating in the event, he finished behind all of the ones who DIDN’T EVEN SHOW UP!! (Except McCain). Only one other candidate that participated did worse: John Cox.
Duncan Hunter’s ONE chance to pull himself out of obscurity passed him by on that fine August day. There will be no other chances like Ames. If you guys think he’s gonna pull off winning SC, you’re worse off than I thought.
Fred Thompson
48.4%
Duncan Hunter
27.0%
I would love to see a Thompson/Hunter ticket. I think for this time in our lives, Thompson has the better chance of getting the nomination, if only by people knowing his name. I think what we have forgotten is that most FReepers follow what’s going on in politics on an almost daily basis; however, most of America does not. They will NOT take the time to do the research we do. If they know a name and hear him speak a few times, that will usually do it for them. This is why I think Hunter cannot do it this time around, although as a VP for 4 years, he will establish himself with the American public to take the House in 2012. Let me ask you all something....
If Dick Cheney were to run, how many of you would consider him your man? I know I would without a second thought.
Do you get some perverse kick out of thumbing your nose at Hunter supporters?
Fred Thompson is the only candidate that gets it. He makes decisions based on principles. Principles don’t change. You have to stand for something and not change who you are based on the polls. That is what Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani have done and all of the Democrats do it. Give me a leader that will stand by his principles anyday versus someone that stands for everything.
I know many, many Republicans that will stay home if Rudy Giuliani is the candidate. He does not represent our values as Conservatives, and never will. Mitt Romney is a RINO (though a very nice man) that simply has everything else and nothing to do. “I guess I’ll just try to buy the presidency”. Conservatives will simply stay home and the Democrats will pick up additional seats in the House and probably get the 60 seats in the Senate they need to completely destroy our Country. Nice picture huh?
However, I think Fred can bring America back together, if that’s even possible. America needs a rebirth of patriotism and honor. Republicans also need a rebirth. President Reagan was our last rebirth and he can never be duplicated. Fred Thompson will bring his own down-to-earth common sense to this Country and strength back to our party. A little of the good old days of faith and family would do well for this Country. If a Conservative runs as a Conservative, he will win!
Think of it this way: Eight years of another Clinton White House? Now if that is not a sufficient enough reason to pull together as a party, as a Country, and fight this socialist liberal takeover of our government, what is? It is not impossible to take back the House and the Senate. We are winning in Iraq—they know it. The best they can do now is stop our progress and choose defeat, just like they did during Vietnam. We lost because Congress chose defeat. History repeats itself when not learned from.
Folks, we are in for the fight of our lives, just as our young men and women are fighting for our freedoms in Iraq and Afghanistan, we must fight for our Country right here and now! I truly believe Fred Thompson is the one man who can pull this party and nation back together! Rudy Giuliani will just tear us apart as a party. Liberal is liberal every day of the week.
Really tick off the democrats and contribute to Fred Thompson: https://www.fred08.com/contribute.aspx?RefererID=c637caaa-315c-4b4c-9967-08d864cd0791
I ran the calculator. It said I should vote for Duncan Hunter. The topics that had the highest priority to me matched his by 90.7%.
And how many times did Fred vote to strip out pork from a bill? Hmmm. Better yet, he was sponsoring some pretty slick education pork...Look up Benjamin Hooks when you get a chance. ROFL
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1898585/posts
Might want to throw your stones for some other candidate.
Hemorrhage made the statement that Duncan Hunter supporters, and if you look at the persons name who started this thread on Duncan Hunter and Fred Thompson you will find that it says David Osbourne and it is quite obvious he is a Duncan Hunter Supporter. He made no exception, he didn’t exclude Mr. Osbourne and he made a very weak argument of a general adhominem attack. I was simply calling him on it in reference specifically to David. Your statements make no sense what so ever! Neither did his characterization of Duncan Hunter supporters. Oh I am not a Duncan Hunter Supporter either, I have yet to find who I will vote for except I know it will not be Fred (globalist) Thompson.
Ravenstar
According to the liberal polls!!! they don’t care about Duncan Hunter. Which is my point! The liberals would not give a conservative the time of day in their polls and they will make sure they barely mention his name. Then you will go spouting about who is “electable” as a support for who you support instead of basing it on the issues!!! Have you figured it out yet that the only ones the libs will mention and cover are people who will continue the slide to total socialism!!!
Ravenstar
“Because, if conservative divide their votes, we’ll end up being stuck with someone completely unacceptable and unelectable like Giuliani.”
So let’s get together and support the TRUEST conservative - Duncan Hunter!
Imagine if conservatives gave up on Ronald Reagan this early?
At the end, it will probably come down to a couple of candidates, BUT IN THE MEANTIME, you can support the STRONGEST conservative, Duncan Hunter to ENSURE that we have a real conservative in the White House. If we don’t have Duncan Hunter, we could lose some of our sovereignty.
I contributed to his campaign, called a talk show and wrote a letter to the editor, and will do it all again.
Thank you my FRiend !
David
>> Hemorrhage made the statement that Duncan Hunter supporters, and if you look at the persons name who started this thread on Duncan Hunter and Fred Thompson you will find that it says David Osbourne and it is quite obvious he is a Duncan Hunter Supporter.
I’d appreciate being notified when I’ve been specifically called out in a thread. To blindside someone in a thread where they’re not even pinged is simply obnoxious.
>> He made no exception, he didn’t exclude Mr. Osbourne and he made a very weak argument of a general adhominem attack. I was simply calling him on it in reference specifically to David.
I made the statement that I believe MANY Duncan Hunter supporters are simply contrarian. The use of the word “MANY” implies the existence of exceptions. I did not state that ALL Duncan Hunter supporters are necessarily contrarian - thus, I never called David Osborne out. Honestly, I don’t know who David Osborne is, and I really couldn’t care less.
>> Oh I am not a Duncan Hunter Supporter either, I have yet to find who I will vote for except I know it will not be Fred (globalist) Thompson.
Then you’ve ruled out the most conservative candidate with a legitimate shot at winning.
H
>> According to the liberal polls!!! they don’t care about Duncan Hunter. Which is my point!
Again - it is a remarkably convenient position for a Hunter supporter to discount ALL polling data as inherently liberal. Polling data is only INHERENTLY liberal to the extent that the population is inherently more liberal than we are. Scientific polling, when done correctly, is just that - scientific.
I’ve seen no reason to believe that Rassmussen Tracking Polls are particularly biased, and no reason to believe that there is an undercurrent of support for Duncan Hunter which hasn’t been accounted for in scientific polls.
Is it not possible that Duncan Hunter simply doesn’t have enough supporters nationwide to make a blip on national polls? Perhaps the polls aren’t wrong. Perhaps Hunter is actually irrelevant.
Even polling on THIS SITE (the poll cited in the original post) - a conservative site which would necessarily skew polling data to the right - shows FAR more support for Fred Thompson than Duncan Hunter.
Perhaps Hunter’s lack of support isn’t a liberal illusion ... perhaps it is a genuine lack of support.
H
The logic you have used so far is that the others are “unelectable” which is why you seem to be voting for Fred Thompson which is the RLC pick not Rudy! Thompson’s Texas campaign manager last I had seen reported was George P. Bush. Many of the Thompson supporters are not arguing on issues but rather on POLLING data! This is the mentality of the lesser of two evils in the PRIMARY!?! The liberals say that Thompson is electable so you are going with him on that basis?!? Examine the records of each of these men and debate who is right for the job on that basis but stop the tired old liberal media manipulation of who is “electable” and who is not. Make at least the primaries on issues for crying out loud. Polling data is rarely scientific. The questions are so phased as to prefer a certain answer and eliminate others candidates are eliminated from the poll altogether! Disproportionate numbers of either very liberal areas or the incorrect proportion one party vs another vs independant voters are asked. There is a very complex narrow line to walk to get a truly scientific poll and nearly a million ways to make a poll fit your agenda! If you think you aren’t being manipulated by the polls you are blind! I work with science and engineering everyday and am very aware that there are lies, damned lies and statistics!(for statistics substitute polls). The polls are meant to be self fulfilling prophecies no more no less and the sheeple have obliged everytime since Reagan.
Ravenstar
>> The logic you have used so far is that the others are “unelectable” which is why you seem to be voting for Fred Thompson which is the RLC pick not Rudy!
OK. I’m a member of the RLC in Texas. What’s your point? That I shouldn’t vote for someone simply because the Republican Leadership Council like them? The RLC liked Reagan.
>> Thompson’s Texas campaign manager last I had seen reported was George P. Bush.
True. So what?
>> Many of the Thompson supporters are not arguing on issues but rather on POLLING data! This is the mentality of the lesser of two evils in the PRIMARY!?!
I have little to no ideological complaints about Duncan Hunter, thus I can make few ideological arguments as to why I won’t be voting for Duncan Hunter. I also have few ideological complaints about Fred Thompson - thus, I cannot base my vote solely on ideology.
Electability is what distinguishes the two. Both are strong conservatives ... but only one of the two has any shot at winning.
I will vote for a conservative everytime. When more than one conservative is in the race, I’ll vote for the one I think has the best chance of success.
>> The liberals say that Thompson is electable so you are going with him on that basis?!?
What liberals are saying that? All the liberals I’ve read say that the Democrats are going to run away with this thing. All the liberals I’ve read say Thompson’s an “empty suit” and “lazy”. Those same liberals said the same thing about Reagan.
Scientific polling data, from reputable non-partisan polling agencies (Rassmussen, for example), show Duncan Hunter to be unelectable. That’s not liberal spin ... that’s fact.
>> Examine the records of each of these men and debate who is right for the job on that basis but stop the tired old liberal media manipulation of who is “electable” and who is not.
I’ve examined the records - I think both would make fine Presidents. I think only one of the two has any chance at actually BEING the President.
>> Polling data is rarely scientific. The questions are so phased as to prefer a certain answer and eliminate others candidates are eliminated from the poll altogether!
Apparently polling data is only “scientific” if you agree with the results. The question “Who will you support in the Republican Primary?” is hardly loaded. Approximately 1% of likely Republican Primary voters choose Duncan Hunter.
H
Hemorrhage,
Talk about a selective look at things. You patently ignore the fact of how easy it is to skew a poll and how difficult it is to get a truly scientific poll and you are ignoring the fact that the polls are paid for by people with a specific agenda. I am not saying any poll is valid!!!! They all are for manipulation purposes. Remember the issues matter with me polls are meaningless. I will try to get it through to you one more time. To get a truly scientific poll is a complex narrow path that must be followed. The odds of getting an accurate poll are small and a meaningless one huge.
Ravenstar
David,
I think Hemorrhage just stated he could vote for Duncan Hunter in the Primary but he instead will vote for what the polls put out by a biased liberal media is telling him to do. He is ignoring that the Bush family have a globalist agenda which is steadily eating away at U.S. sovereignty. W has even jumped on the man caused “Global Warming” bandwagon poppycock.
Ravenstar
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.