Replies

your numbers are biased so you just end up with a convoluted formula to validate your bias. to wit:

“EXPERIENCE: Guiliani 90, McCain 85, Romney 85 (gubernatorial exp. trumps Senate time) Duncan 80, Fred 75”
Huh? Duncan has been in office since 1980. Guliani has never held elected Federal office. => EXPERIENCE: Hunter 85, McCain 85, Romney 85 (gubernatorial exp. trumps Senate time) Guliani 75, Fred 75

==> TELEGENIC PRESENCE: Romney has aced every debate, debates where Guliani and McCain did poorly, and should definitely be well above Guliani and McCain... Romney 90, Fred 85, Hunter 75, McCain 70, Guliani 75”

“CONSERVATIVE RATINGS: Hunter 96, Fred 92, Romney 73, McCain 67, Guiliani 58”
??? Romney is running at least as conservative as Fred is, and governed pretty conservatively for a blue-state governor. His rating should be higher. Guliani should be lower.

ELECTABILITY: Polls show Guliani no longer much ahead of other GOP candidates like Romney. McCain is completely unelectable due to Iraq/immigration double hex. Guliani 85, Fred 85, Romney 75, Hunter 70, McCain 50.

“MONEY (est): Guiliani 20, McCain 20, Hunter 15, Romney 10, Fred 5”
Doh! you have it bakwards! Romney is on top on fund-raising - number one with over $30 million raised - and McCain is *broke*!! And Fred is doing amazing pre-announcement fundraising ...

MONEY: Guiliani 20, Romney 20, Fred 15, Hunter 10, McCain 5

So you got all your numbers wrong - result- Garbage in, garbage out ... should look more like:
375 Romney
337 Hunter
335 Fred
313 McCain
282 Guliani

May I play also?
Experience = Giuliani and Romney at 90, Hunter and McCain at 85, and Thompson at 75. I would rate Thompson higher, but as I have a bit of a bias towards him at the moment, I will leave him at 75.

TV – Very subjective. (Romney and Thompson get 90 on this one, Giuliani does well at 85, I’ll be kind to both Hunter and McCain and give them 70… neither has impressed me much on the little I have seen them in the debates in their ability to schmooze the American People.)

Conservative/Liberal – I tied these together and figured that the sum of the absolute values here logically should be 100. (Hunter 96 and -4, Thompson 92 and -8, Romney 73 and -27 (I just don’t believe him with so many changes on issues lately.) McCain 67 and -33, and Giuliani at 33 and -67)

Electability – Again I put this on a 1-100 scale. Positives – negatives + percent against Clinton + percent against Obama. Hunter had no poll results, so I gave him the same numbers as Giuliani (top) as percents against the Democrats. (Giuliani 100, Thompson 99, Hunter 83, McCain and Romney 74)

Money – converted to 1 to 100 scale. Cashed raised second quarter – cash outflow 2nd quarter + funding (Romney can self fund.) (Romney 100, Thompson 80 (no spending), Giuliani broke even though he had most contributions: 50, McCain -10 and that might be lenient, Hunter 0 he raised less than in the whole quarter than I saw that Thompson got in the first 24 hours his website was live.)

Polling – I took their numbers and multiplied them by 3.84615 and rounded up. This translated Thompson’s 26% to 100 (Thompson 100, Giuliani 97, McCain and Romney 43, and Hunter 1)

Final tally:

McCain 296
Hunter 334
Giuliani 388
Romney 443
Thompson 528

I am about even in my like for Hunter and Thompson, perhaps a bit more toward Thompson lately. Hunter loses it on how low he is still performing. Of the above, I could not bring myself to vote for Giuliani or McCain, though I might pull it for McCain if I took enough pain killers. Romney is more of an undecided in my mind. Too many of his stands have no positive history to back them.

I’m for Tommy Thompson, but just for fun I decided to try his scale and rank the candidates from first to last in all of those catergories. I’m still coming up with the numbers but when did an honest judgement and rated them, I came up with:

EXPERIENCE: Tommy 95, Guiliani, Paul, McCain, Hunter, Tancredo, Brownback, Fred, Romney

TELEGENIC PRESENCE: Romney, Huckabee, Fred, Tancredo, Guiliani, Hunter, McCain, Tommy, Paul, Brownback

CONSERVATIVE RATINGS: Tancredo, Hunter, Tommy, Brownback, Huckabee, Fred, Paul, McCain, Romney, Guiliani

LIBERAL RATINGS: Tancredo (liberals HATE him), Hunter, Tommy, Huckabee, Fred, Brownback, Romney, McCain, Guiliani, Paul (not acutally that liberal BUT the loons at DU love him)

ELECTABILITY (general election): Romney, Guiliani, Tommy, Huckabee, Fred, McCain, Paul, Hunter, Brownback, Tancredo

MONEY (est): Romney, Guiliani, Paul, McCain, Brownback, Tancredo, Hunter, Tommy, Huckabee, Fred (unannounced)

POLLING (primary election): Giuliani, Fred, Romney, McCain , Tommy, Huckabee, Tancredo, Hunter, Paul, Brownback

your numbers are biased

Of course. Most of those figures reflect my opinion only. As I said, any person can do that calculation for themselves, and I think any rational assessment has Fred on top.

so you just end up with a convoluted formula to validate your bias.

I may get a result you do not agree with, but the formula is rather basic. It isn't convolunted, just my cockamammie opinion ratings are. ;^)

Duncan has been in office since 1980. Guliani has never held elected Federal office.

True, but Rudy's small fiefdom has more people than several states, and he governed during an incredible crisis that no others have faced. That was my rationale. Hunter has been in office for a long time, but had not made the national stage until this run.

=> EXPERIENCE: Hunter 85, McCain 85, Romney 85 (gubernatorial exp. trumps Senate time) Guliani 75, Fred 75

And let's use your numbers to make a new tally, shall we?

I forgot about those debates. He did do very well, but debates aren't the entire body of telegenic presence. I should bump him up a few points, though.

“CONSERVATIVE RATINGS: Hunter 96, Fred 92, Romney 73, McCain 67, Guiliani 58” ??? Romney is running at least as conservative as Fred is, and governed pretty conservatively for a blue-state governor. His rating should be higher. Guliani should be lower.

Okay, let's use: “CONSERVATIVE RATINGS: Hunter 96, Fred 84, Romney 90, McCain 67, Guiliani 58”, and I think that's highly underestimating Fred.

M'kay

“MONEY (est): Guiliani 20, McCain 20, Hunter 15, Romney 10, Fred 5” Doh! you have it bakwards! Romney is on top on fund-raising - number one with over $30 million raised - and McCain is *broke*!! And Fred is doing amazing pre-announcement fundraising ...MONEY: Guiliani 20, Romney 20, Fred 15, Hunter 10, McCain 5

Okay

So you got all your numbers wrong - result- Garbage in, garbage out ... should look more like: 375 Romney 337 Hunter 335 Fred 313 McCain 282 Guliani

No, using your very own numbers, we now get:

372 Fred
360 Mitt
337 Hunter
310 Rudy
273 McCain

Again, with a fair and rational assessment Fred is still on top... and that's with severely overestimating Mitt's electability ("President Mitt?? and a Mormon?? No, but thanks" says the mushy middle), and underestimating Fred's conservative ratings (maybe you chose diffferent groups' ratings than I did)