[nathanbedford]

You think that the two last man standing will be Thompson and Giuliani with Thompson winning. I think the last two will be Thompson and Romney with Thompson winning.

Your argument that Giuliani will carry the Rockefeller wing of the party has merit especially when considered in the context of his national name recognition and claim to fame from 9/11 and crime stopping in New York City. If you are right it means that the states that cannot possibly elect a Republican presidents including California and the Northeast, will nominate a candidate unsatisfactory to the bulk of the Republicans in the states responsible for electing Republican presidents because they're the only ones who have the power to do so. Nevertheless, you might be right.

Strangely, the MSM pundits seem to believe that we have both done it wrong when we say that Thompson will get the nomination. They don't believe he has the stuff on the campaign trail and they don't believe he has the organizational ability to put together the kind of campaign that can compete with the organizational skills of Romney and the charisma of Giuliani. They haven't said so, but it is clear they see him as a kind of a doofus.

These pundits seem to have inconsistent positions. They will be among the first to say that it is the leaders in the early caucus and primary states who will be in the best position to win as the nomination process rolls out after Iowa, New Hampshire, Michigan and into South Carolina. If Romney can hold his position in the first three states is momentum will be difficult to stop. Recent polls have shown that Thompson is slipping in ahead of or right behind Giuliani in these states. It appears that Giuliani is slipping in these critical areas and Fred Thompson is making headway as we both predict. I believe that Giuliani will slip away to below Thomson and Romney by the time the Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primaries are held. We both believe that Thompson will be ahead of Romney by then.

The pundits will not acknowledge Thompson's advance in these states-at least on the Sunday talk shows-and seem fixated on their "doofus" template.

I don't believe that our differences are greater than our common differences with the mainstream media. In any event, our differences are not that great. I am merely looking at this from an analytical point of view and have not expressed much of the desire in this exchange about whom I would like to see elected. That is a different matter.

[Brices Crossroads]

It will be interesting to see whether it plays out as you suggest. Iowa is make or break for Romney. If he loses it, he is done, I believe. And if he loses it, he will likely lose it to Thompson given the very conservative demographics in the Iowa GOP caucus. I do not believe there are enough liberals for Guiliani to sneak in with Romney and Thompson splitting the conservative vote. The way your scenario could play out is if Romney won Iowa and New Hampshire. Thompson could derail him in South Carolina and Florida, then finish him off, for all practical purposes, on February 5.

I think the more likely scenarios are these. Thompson wins Iowa, then New Hampshire, in which case it is all over. He doesn’t lose any primaries. As A Fred supporter, this is what I would prefer.

The second scenario also calls for Thompson to win Iowa, but Guiliani wins New Hampshire because a lot of the Independents take Republican ballots and vote for him not in spite of but because of his liberal stands on social issues. Thompson defeats him in South Carolina, then finishes him off in Florida after which Rudy wins a few primaries but the nomination race is effectively over. It will be interesting to see which of these scenarios, or variations of them, actually occurs.