Polling conducted by Acme Political Consultants...
Posted on 10/07/2007 1:04:27 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Fred bump!
Polling conducted by Acme Political Consultants...
N.H., a state that chooses McCain in 2000 and goes for Kerry in 2004, has credibility issues as far as I’m concerned.
Thompson hasn’t spent much time in Iowa either, but voters there evidently didn’t have trouble vaulting him into second and trimming Romney’s lead substaintially.
As far as I’m concerned the Thompson campaign should focus on Iowa, Florida..and well obviously S.C. Leave N.H. to the Libs to battle it out.
LOL!
The Republican primary race is shaping up. Barring a big suprise, the three candidates that have some traction in the polls are Thompson, Guliani, and Romney. McCain is toast. Huckabee and Hunter are good people, but just don’t have the national profile needed to win.
Romney has gone all-in in Iowa and New Hampshire in the hopes that wins in those two states will position him as one of the final two, and the more conservative alternative to Rudy. The actual delegate counts from those states aren’t as important as the perception of winning.
Now it looks like Thompson may overtake Romney in Iowa, and Guliani is going to come close to catching him in New Hampshire, where a narrow Romney win won’t be perceived as a win at at all. If that happens, Romney has nothing left. It will be down to Thomspons and Rudy as the only two candidates with the strength left to wage national campaigns.
In a one-on-one matchup in the Republican primary, the conservative Thompson will win.
Ought to be interesting. I think Romney has been taking Iowa for granted right now, hoping for the domino effect, and so if he loses that, he’s toast.
Someone ought to remind Mr. Romney of a guy named Pat Robertson who thought along those lines.
Good analysis and I hope the right one.
“I have it on good authority (my m00nbat neighbor), that Paul has NH, VT, CT, RI, and American Somoa, all sewed up.”
Correct, but an international cabal in Switzerland will prevent his votes from being tabulated.
Those evil bastards...
at this point I am hoping that Guiliani goes the way of McCain.
The sooner that candidate is out of the primary the sooner we can go to serious candates.
Then we have only Romeny and Thompson and who will require a smaller clothespin.
Excellent observation.
LLS
We really should have our initial, decisive primaries in states that a republican won in the last election, so as to reward them and guage conservative support for our candidates.
One thing that is interesting is that even though there are definite differences between the Republican candidates, there is a greater difference between any Republican candidate and Hillary. All have said they would appoint strict constructionist judges. One thing that conservatives cannot afford to lose is the Supreme Court. It’s getting very gray and aged. I just hope conservatives learned something from ‘06 and get out and vote this time or there will be very dark days ahead.
Well, I understand the premise of choosing a state that say, isn’t Georgia? to start the process because you want the candidate to be able to appeal outside of the most conservative part of the country.
Mass would be a ridiculous choice, but N.H. USED to serve this purpose.
In latter years they’ve been flooded with escaping liberals from nearby states, This, imo, is why N.H.’s credibility is in jeopardy. Mass, Rhode Island or Maine..name a liberal northeastern state? are not solid judges as to how Ohio for instance will turn. N.H. is rapidly becoming their clone, as their previous choices in primary and the general would attest.
Iowa remains a state that could go either way on a couple of thousand votes. They voted for Bush in the GOP primary, Gore in 2000 I think? barely. Then Bush in 2004? That state makes sense to use as a barometer for swing states. I just think N.H. no longer meets the standard and another state ought to be chosen. Like Colorado? N.M.? Virginia?
South Carolina is a pretty conservative state, but with a little independent streak. Conservative voices are definitely represented there.
Yeah, all have ‘said they would appoint strict constructionist judges’, but what does ‘strict constructionist judge’ actually mean to them?
Rudy says that he would appoint ‘strict constructionist judges’ and names Alito and Roberts as examples. However, when pressed, he says that Ruth Bader Ginsburg is a ‘strict constructionist judge’. So, if he’s defining the terms, how do we have any idea what he would appoint?
You’re fine except for the addition of NM, which has so much voter fraud that it can’t be trusted. Any Republican who wins there has to win by 10+ points just to beat the voter fraud. It’s almost as bad as NJ.
Fredipedia: The Definitive Fred Thompson Reference
WARNING: If you wish to join, be aware that this ping list is EXTREMELY active.
Yeah, but this would be just the Republican primary. Fraud isn’t as rampant in the GOP primary, well, not the ballot kind anyway. Democrats have been known to cross over to republican primaries and try to affect the outcome. McCain encouraged it. So did Chafee...
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.