Thompson Tied with Clinton, Trails Obama

Rasmussen Reports ^ | 3/23/07 | Rasmussen

[AlexW]

"Stupid poll. Most people don't even know who he is."

All of these polls are stupid and worthless. I don't know why FReepers
pay so much attention to them.
Listening to Drudge last night and clips of Sean Excrement Penn, it seems that Hollwierd is thinking that Shillery is a shoe in with their money.
Wake me around summer of 08, then I will be interested.

[Rick_Michael]

These numbers are probably more a reflection of national voter attitudes towards the Democrats than a comment on Thompson. A plurality of voters (41%) has no opinion on the actor from Tennessee. Thirty-six percent (36%) have a favorable opinion while 23% hold an unfavorable view.

[Rick_Michael]

And that's mostly just one on 'I hate hillary'.

"These numbers are probably more a reflection of national voter attitudes towards the Democrats than a comment on Thompson. A plurality of voters (41%) has no opinion on the actor from Tennessee. Thirty-six percent (36%) have a favorable opinion while 23% hold an unfavorable view."

I like Thompson, and I think he'll influence many people in the indepedent rung to vote for him.

[Rick_Michael]

" It makes some sense, 46% of people polled will not vote for Hillary! She can't win, she's a moribund looser."

Thank Edwards. Obama might have a chance against Hillary if it wasn't for Edwards. Atleast that's how I see it. Since people dislike Hillary so much, we just need someone that will get the voters out, and whom isn't too dirty.

[Mia T]

;)

I don't think Thompson will run. But he may be Rudy's VP.

[Admin Moderator]

Thread History

Action	User	Date/Time
Append keyword "crackhead"	CrawDaddyCA	03/23/2007 11:20:21 AM CDT
Append keyword "fredthompson"	RockinRight	03/23/2007 10:35:29 AM CDT
Append keyword "thompson"	RockinRight	03/23/2007 10:35:29 AM CDT
Append keyword "emptysuit"	BenLurkin	03/23/2007 9:59:42 AM CDT
Append keyword "brokenhome"	BenLurkin	03/23/2007 9:59:42 AM CDT
Append keyword "hypehypehype"	BenLurkin	03/23/2007 9:59:42 AM CDT
Append keyword "bisexual"	BenLurkin	03/23/2007 9:59:41 AM CDT
Append keyword "hildebeast"	seanmerc	03/23/2007 9:42:58 AM CDT

[okay]

[Mia T]

I believe you are right about the Edwards effect, Rick_Michael.

A similar thing could happen on the Right. If Thompson enters the race, we could wind up with our own hillary nightmare: McCain.

The reason: Almost all conservatives despise McCain. Many if not most social conservatives despise Rudy. From this it follows that most conservative support for Thompson will come from Rudy--(the remainder of Thompson's support will come from the perot redux group)--which may very well leave McCain with a plurality... and the country with another defective and lethally dangerous pres. clinton.

Be careful what you wish for....

[Rick_Michael]

For some reason I don't believe this is so. I don't think I could vote for Rudy (although I guess you can say never say never), and I wouldn't vote for McCain. So I really can't be attributed to votes taken from either. To be honest, I don't see how you can wholly want Rudy and then just switch to Fred.

They're two different idealogies altogether, and I'd wager it's mostly an either/or situation. I'm not sure there are many Rudy fans that just flip-over to the Fred-line. I think they just start-out in the Fred-line.

I find our new poll interesting...Fred with a 46.7% of the votes...Rudy at 10% and McCain at .6%. It doesn't really look to me that within the Conservatives (atleast) the votes are harming Rudy from winning. McCain will not have our support, and I do believe we as conservative will have a hute effect on the primaries.

[Mia T]

You are in the 'perot redux' group in my thesis. ;)

And I don't think FR is a representative sample.

There are social conservatives who are more pragmatic and are supporting Rudy because he can win. Not a huge compromise in their minds since he will have the right fiscal policy and will appoint the right judges. But still, they are backing into Rudy. These are the people who could, reasonably, switch to Fred.

If, say, Rudy is 45% w/o Fred and McCain is 35%, and half of Rudy's support bolts to Fred, then we have Rudy at 22.5%, Fred at, say 22.5 + 10 from the 'perots'... in which case McCain wins.

[Rick_Michael]

"You are in the 'perot redux' group in my thesis. ;)"

Perot...lol. Never. I didn't vote at the time. I'm more of libertarian, and I'm very prudent in giving support to the R's. I just happen to hate most of current liberal platforms....but to be honest, I don't think that's good enough of a reason to vote R ie an alternative crappy candidate.

Frankly I wish our gov when back to a conservative/libertarian arguement w/ just a vague liberal view within. I think that all depends on libertarian/conservatives/religous people working together for common goals. The Republicans shouldn't be moving more to the left...that's very dangerous...you have to admit that?

GW offended many people on illegal immigration...imagine an actual quasi-republican offend whole sectors of the R's. That's dangerous territory that I wish to avoid.

---

"Not a huge compromise in their minds since he will have the right fiscal policy and will appoint the right judges."

Fiscally, neither side has the cahones to do much of anything that will long-tern change things, although I do trust Rudy to some level in that area.

The judges...well, that's really up-in-the-air. A leap of faith,...but not in god....in Rudy. Not quite sure I trust him there.

---

"But still, they are backing into Rudy. These are the people who could, reasonably, switch to Fred."

Any viable religious vote would heavily consider Fred. So I can see that part of your arguement. But you're not considering that people that support McCain may switch to Fred as well.

I just think you're coming-up with heavy assumptions. Half of Rudy's numbers....? That seems a bit farfetched.

[Mia T]

As I've said before, the root of the problem is entrenched power. We won't solve our problems unless and until we dump ALL the professional pols (mediocre, power-hungry and corrupt or corruptible by definition) and replace them with citizen politicians, people of the highest caliber who will serve a term or two and then return to their day jobs.

In the meantime, we must keep all the lethally dangerous clowns far from the White House.

These are perilous times. Putting doctrinal purity ahead of making sure a defective and dangerous clinton never again controls this country is pre-clinton thinking.

We no longer have the luxury of time or circumstance to massage our sensibilities, to indulge our indignations. We will not survive another clinton. (We may yet not survive the first.)

[Jet Jaguar]

Fred Thompson 44% Hitlary 43%

But Rudy is the ONLY.

[Rick_Michael]

"These are perilous times. Putting doctrinal purity ahead of making sure a defective and dangerous clinton never again controls this country is pre-clinton thinking.

We no longer have the luxury of time or circumstance to massage our sensibilities, to indulge our indignations. We will not survive another clinton. (We may yet not survive the first.)"

I believe the enemy lies within.

Although I get your point. When it comes down to it, I will deeply consider the R's candiate, no matter who. I hope it won't be that bad, though.

I do think there's too much fear of Fred. It's as though some Rudy fan's just want him in the race and no one else. Would it comfort the crowd if McCain just left and the race was between MAYBE Fred (if he decides to run) and Rudy?

[Mia T]

I don't think it's fear of Fred, per se. It's just the dynamic.

That said, I don't think he'll jump in.

I'm not exactly sure what makes him qualified. A great voice and having pretended, on occasion, to be president doesn't seem to be quite enough. ;)

[Rick_Michael]

If Rudy get's the nomination and the presidency, he better tread softly on certain issues. I'm not super-religious, but I know the base of conservatives and the religious are interwined....to offend either side too much (even if it's immigration) will do incredible harm to the party.

That can't be overemphasized. As far as Fred's background...there's plenty of experience.

I do find certain things about Rudy appealing (I'm not going to constantly hate the man), but as a whole he seems like the second option or third....better as cabinet. I think it speaks more to the sad state of the party, that he's the leader. Surely there's more to the right than Rudy!? I'm not saying Fred is the diamond in the rough, but the left has one strength we don't have....

Persistance without compromise. Our party's will is weak. We slowly give into the left, and it seems even this arguement is a part of that.

Just think of the last 50 years...we went from a rather small government liberal leader JFK, to a new-left liberal entrenched government with both sides leaning-left.

[Mia T]

While I see your point, I think we must look beyond it in this election.

In my view, Bush has made rightist ideology untouchable in 2008. I believe any rightwing ideologue in '08--real or apparent--will be savaged by the left and ultimately rejected by everyone but the rightwing ideologues.

That is one reason why Rudy is, in fact, the perfect candidate for 2008. (Among the others are his leadership qualities, his terrorism credentials and his achievements.)

A interesting ticket: Rudy-Fred.

[Rick_Michael]

"While I see your point, I think we must look beyond it in this election."

I think this next elections critical for one thing ie judicial picks. I do concern myself over the war, but for some reason I don't think it's the biggest problem in itself. For some reason I think our next president won't have to deal with Iraq as much as Iran.

Although I still hope we don't go to war with them...I hope they concede. Or by some miracle we produce a viable alternative fuel in America e.g algae fuel. In this case, the technology can encircle Europe and our trade partners. But it's looking like a dangerous road ahead of us. To that point, I might have to just go to the poll with an R.

---

"will be savaged by the left and ultimately rejected by everyone but the rightwing ideologues"

Bush's level of Conservatism is rather weak in clear perspective. He's obviously conservative in a sense of religion, but economically I'd say he's more of a moderate.

I don't know. I'm not going to claim otherwise, but I do think we're a right leaning country...even more so than Rudy.

---

"A interesting ticket: Rudy-Fred."

If that does happen, I won't have as much of a problem voting. What Rudy can do to seal things is say....Fred will be mostly responsible for judicial appointments and domestic issues, while I'll deal with security and economic review. That would convince me a bit.

Also no amnesty Rudy. That's one of the reason I feel completely at odds with Rudy.