(vanity) Why the smart money is on Duncan Hunter

Well all, if you look aty my post again you will see that I was forecasting the direction criticism would come from should the media notice Duncan Hunter. It would come as scrutiny of his top contributors and they sway they have had, if any, on his votes and proposed legislation.

As far as trhe Heritage Foundation Budget paper I linked, of the five bills it cited as excessive spending (page 5), Duncan voted AYE on the top 3 (I haven’t had the chance to research the others):

No Child Left Behind
2002 Farm Bill
2003 Medicare Drug Bill

He also voted last week or so to override the president’s veto of the porked-up Watrer Resources Development Act (WRDA)- a bill the prez voted as an example of an bill overloaded with earmarks and pet projects.

He did vote against the 2007 Farm Bill. Inquiring minds can look up his votes on the other typically porked-up bills - Transportation, Energy, Head Start.

Don’t shoot the messenger folks. Candidates always merit scrutiny, and scrutiny based on an excess of federal largesse is a hallmark of this here board.

Here’s the truth of the matter: Duncan Hunter can’t get elected President until he rises to a higher echelon than “Congressman.”
***By the direction of your responses to this statement, I gather you’ve taken the tact that this is due to history. That does not mean that it CANNOT happen. Lincoln was just a congressman. This is a unique election. For the first time in our history, we have an african-american, a woman, a cross-dressing gun-grabbing Italian socialist, a mormon, a certified nutcase former POW, and a certified nutcase libertarian all vying for the slot, most with poll numbers that show current viability, and all basically with serious flaws. Anything can happen and in this election, already has. History has ceased to be a guide.

Each state has one Governor. Each state has two Senators. It’s somewhat of a miracle if people can name all three figures in their state. On the other hand, members of the House of the Representatives number 435 throughout the nation.
***Basically what you’re getting at here is Hunter’s [gosh where have we heard this before?] name recognition. But who around here ever heard of Dan Quayle before he was named as VP candidate? Very few. Name recognition is something that can be gained within one election cycle because the process itself generates the name recognition. Character is more important than name recognition because you cannot buy character.

Governors have great advantage when it comes to running: They have executive experience, name recognition among people of the state, and they’ve already won a statewide election. Senators have national name recognition and a victory in the state, but only legislative experience.
Congress(wo)men only have legislative experience, and it’s rare that they are well-known if they are not either Speaker of the House or Minority Leader. ***Basically this is one long, extended name recognition argument.

I live in San Francisco. Duncan Hunter’s from San Diego. If I had heard of Hunter before he announced he was running, I forgot about him.
***More of the same. Do you think I had not heard this name recognition argument before?

If Duncan Hunter seriously wants to be President, he ought to run for Governor of California after R-nold terms out.
***If Hunter does not win this election and still wants to be president, he would be better served to move east a couple hundred miles and go for Guvner of Arizona or New Mexico or maybe Nevada or something like that. The only reason why Hillary is in this race is because she carpet-bagged her way over to New York. A social conservative moving up the ranks in California might as well try to hold back the tide these days, which you should know if you’re in SF. Based upon McClintock’s experience with the California GOP, Hunter could expect zero real support for such a bid for Cal guvner. But he’d be a shoe-in for Nevada.

It is unlikely he would win a race against Sen. Feinstein or Boxer, who, I reluctantly remind you, received more votes in 2004 than any Senate candidate in the nation’s history.
***This goes to my point that California is rigged. What you extend to Hunter is essentially poor advice.

Of course, Hunter would first have to buck the California Republican Party, which has been controlled by RINOs who cower in fear of riling the lefties.
***My point is made.

That is the emotional language of someone who has felt betrayed by his candidate. But the Hunter followers do not feel betrayed, they have circled the wagons and they are coming out fighting. That’s where you put your money down, where there is fight to the inner core, and the guy they’re fighting for is genuine.

The reason I have been and will continue to send the Hunter campaign $100 or more each month is simple: God commands me to do what is right. That includes supporting righteous men (women) running for office. God says nothing about polls, probabilities. Others who support candidates who believe the protection of innocent life is a private or state matter will give their own account to God for that. He commands me, in Proverbs 24:11, to stick up for those without a voice, both in my own life and vicariously through elected leaders.

I will do what is right. The outcome is in His hands, not mine, yours or anyone else's. That is why I am supporting Duncan Hunter.

By the direction of your responses to this statement, I gather you’ve taken the tact that this is due to history. That does not mean that it CANNOT happen. Lincoln was just a congressman.

As I mention in subsequent responses in the thread I linked, I detail the fact that with the exception of candidates elected on the strength of their leadership as victorious Generals (Washington, Taylor, Garfield, Grant, Eisenhower), there have only been five Presidents who were neither Senators nor Governors: James Madison, Abraham Lincoln (who was a national figure after his debates with Stephen Douglas, who defeated him in an Illinois Senate race), and Millard Fillmore were Congressmen (Fillmore was selected out of NY State's Comptroller's office to be Taylor's VP); William Howard Taft was Theodore Roosevelt's hand-picked governor of the Philippines and Cuba; Herbert Hoover was Calvin Coolidge's Secretary of Commerce. More here.

This is a unique election. For the first time in our history, we have an african-american, a woman, a cross-dressing gun-grabbing Italian socialist, a mormon, a certified nutcase former POW, and a certified nutcase libertarian all vying for the slot, most with poll numbers that show current viability, and all basically with serious flaws. Anything can happen and in this election, already has. History has ceased to be a guide.

It sure hasn't when it comes to members of Congress getting to the White House.

Basically what you’re getting at here is Hunter’s [gosh where have we heard this before?] name recognition. But who around here ever heard of Dan Quayle before he was named as VP candidate? Very few.

Quayle had already won statewide office in Indiana.

Name recognition is something that can be gained within one election cycle because the process itself generates the name recognition. Character is more important than name recognition because you cannot buy character.

Under ideal conditions, perhaps. But remember who the front runners in both parties are: Hillary and Rudy. Why do you think that is? Their character, or their name recognition?

Giuliani, if he should win (which I don't think will happen even if he gets the nomination), would be the first President ever to go from Mayor to President. So what's the diff between him and Hunter? Everyone who knows anything about politics knows who Rudy is. Don't forget that when Time magazine chickened out of making Osama bin Laden its "Person of the Year" in 2001, they selected Giuliani instead.

Hunter couldn't buy that kind of publicity, and if he did, he would still have to perform well at campaign events. Unlike Mike Huckabee, Hunter hasn't broken away from the pack.

"Under ideal conditions, perhaps. But remember who the front runners in both parties are: Hillary and Rudy. Why do you think that is? Their character, or their name recognition?"

Neither..it's money.

A few months back, before any "front runners" were determined by polls, did you notice the beginning of the coverage of the candidates? All really cool picks popping up on the News monitors and in the papers that set the idea in everyones minds who "the" candidates are. The images were of Hillary (liberal DC money), Obama (liberal Chicago money) and Rudy (liberal NY money)....but NONE of the other candidates. This is called subliminal suggestion and mind control.

Before all this, no one knew who the h@ll Obama was....

Wake up sheep.

As I mention in subsequent responses....
***Again this is one, long, extended name recognition argument. That does not mean that it CANNOT happen.

Kevmo: History has ceased to be a guide.
Smithee: It sure hasn’t when it comes to members of Congress getting to the White House.
***It sure has. Note that this is just a statement, like what you say is just a statement. I’ll huff and I’ll puff and I’ll blow your house down because I’m so certain that I’m correct. All that huffing and puffing isn’t an argument to bolster your point.

Kevmo: But who around here ever heard of Dan Quayle before he was named as VP candidate? Very few.
Smithee: Quayle had already won statewide office in Indiana.
***Circular argument. Your argument is that you CAN’T (your word — CANNOT) win the presidency without some kind of statewide post like guvner. The reason? It somehow generates that magical factor of Name recognition. Quayle had very little name recognition. Your response to that: he had wond statewide office.

Kevmo: Name recognition is something that can be gained within one election cycle because the process itself generates the name recognition.
Smithee: Under ideal conditions, perhaps.
***Thanks for acknowledging my case. I do not concede that it needs to happen under ideal conditions. Such conditions never take place, so it falls by the weight of its own presumption. If anything, these kinds of things happen under the free-for-all types of races that we see right now. If I said that an actor with very little political experience could win the guvnership of Cahleefornyea, you’d say “under ideal conditions”. What was ideal about the recall and the gigantic mess it made? There was nothing ideal about it. But the fluid battlefield motions on the ground are the right conditions for this kind of thing to take place.

But remember who the front runners in both parties are: Hillary and Rudy. Why do you think that is? Their character, or their name recognition?
***Their name recognition. That tells me that the whole process needs to change on the republican side. It also tells me that the republican party is headed for a major internecine battle, that Thompson was the chosen one to lead it and he faltered when he was called up to lead the charge. We need someone with real courage, not Hollywood courage.

Giuliani, if he should win (which I don’t think will happen even if he gets the nomination), would be the first President ever to go from Mayor to President. So what’s the diff between him and Hunter?
***Wouldn’t that negate your point that he needs to have won a state office? Rudy chose to take a pass on the statewide office when it was [guess who] Hillary that he would have been up against. But now he’s supposed to be the frontrunner to take on Hillary in an even bigger battle? That kind of setup is what leads to very fluid conditions on the ground, and that is where it’s possible that a guy like Hunter can win, and win big.

Everyone who knows anything about politics knows who Rudy is. Don’t forget that when Time magazine chickened out of making Osama bin Laden its “Person of the Year” in 2001, they selected Giuliani instead.
***So, tootyfruityrudy has name recognition. Again we go back to your one, long, extended name recognition argument.

Hunter couldn’t buy that kind of publicity, and if he did, he would still have to perform well at campaign events. Unlike Mike Huckabee, Hunter hasn’t broken away from the pack.
***Yes, Hunter could buy that kind of publicity. Dan Quayle had it granted to him as a result of the process. A 12 year old could run against Hitlery if he was conservative enough to get the liberal media into an anti-conservative frenzy.

The "smart money" is most certainly NOT on Duncan Hunter. There is no chance of him winning the nomination, so there is no long-term value to his contract -- it will eventually be worth $0.00 per share, and as such, it is impossible to sell even at the minimum trading value of $0.10.

Even if -- and this is a big if -- Hunter could manage to get to 5% in a reputable poll and stay there for any length of time, the probability of getting the nomination remains too low to ever make a 1000:1 payout attractive enough to draw investors to allow a trade at its current minimum price, let alone ever raise up anywhere near as high as you suggest.

Poll numbers do not equate to probabilities. No matter how many times you try to claim otherwise.

Oh, thanks for coming over to this thread. And as we can all see, you’ve already jumped to the point where you’re posting in impressive bold stuff. The reason: Because this makes your candidate look bad and you don’t like it. It shows that you’re afraid of how this shows your candidate in the negative light. He’s had the positive light, and squandered the lead in the polls and a 30 point lead at Intrade, and with a negative light his followers end up getting shrill. The candidacy shows more signs of imploding than turning around.

The “smart money” is most certainly NOT on Duncan Hunter.
***Let’s see. That was the title of this thread, we’ve gone through 290 posts where the analysis still stands, and now we’re moving to the phase where you repeat the contention but now it’s in bold.

There is no chance of him winning the nomination, so there is no long-term value to his contract — it will eventually be worth $0.00 per share, and as such, it is impossible to sell even at the minimum trading value of $0.10.
***That is an amazing crystal ball you’ve got there. There’s no chance, and yet only $2200 or so would bring his contract price up 5X compared to what it is today. Hunter is a bargain because all that has to happen is that the Intrade results would be somewhat near his polling results. That’s a possible 40-to-1 return. But you say he has no chance, so I guess that means that we’re supposed to take your word for it rather than decide for ourselves whether or not this is a bargain.

Even if — and this is a big if — Hunter could manage to get to 5% in a reputable poll and stay there for any length of time, the probability of getting the nomination
***That is the IF, acknowledged as part of the analysis. Hunter would need to go from 4% to 5%. What are those chances? I would put them at about 2 to 1. So I would be taking a 2-to-1 bet to gain a 40-to-1 contract. That’s a great bargain. It’s like poker, when the pot odds are way above your hand odds.

remains too low to ever make a 1000:1 payout attractive enough to draw investors to allow a trade at its current minimum price, let alone ever raise up anywhere near as high as you suggest.
***Ahh, you have used a classic fallacy here. I knew that your analysis was flawed. Your fallacy is simple straw argumentation. Your claim is that the payout aim is for the whole kit & Caboodle, whereas it is plainly posted that the payout comes in at 40-to-1 if Hunter’s numbers on Intrade start to reflect his current polling numbers.

Poll numbers do not equate to probabilities. No matter how many times you try to claim otherwise.
***I have never claimed it, but the Intrade Market certainly takes that into account. Oh, and by the way, since I never claimed it, that’s another classic straw argument. Your analysis has gaping flaws, not just minor flaws.

FR is the Conservative bastion of which I speak, and the current member poll shows Fred in the lead.

There are some die hard Duncan fans, and well there should be, optimism is good and he is the only other conservative.

I am disturbed however about your continued placing the blame for Hunters performance on Fred’s entry. If Duncan indeed is a strong candidate for this office we are choosing Fred’s actions should have no impact.

Fred stands in the way of nothing, because there is no proof that Hunter had the support Fred “stole” to begin with other than the actions of a few speculators at best.

I also find that it should be seen as somewhat insulting to say that Hunter cannot get/keep that support with out Fred's departure, because that is his job and his responsibility as a politician in an election.

So there is nothing for Fred to get out of the way of. He is still performing better than Hunter so until that changes, by efforts put out by Hunter himself, then there is no reason for Fred to step aside (there are many others past just this argument as well)

BTW come find me in one of the other threads, I not going to keep bumping your vanity, it's unseemly...

And as we can all see, you’ve already jumped to the point where you’re posting in impressive bold stuff.

Since you can't argue logic, you choose to critique my posting style. I'll highlight what I darn well please, as it is impossible to pass inflection along with the written word without it.

The reason: Because this makes your candidate look bad and you don’t like it.

I'll repeat myself from the other thread: This has nothing to do with "my candidate" or your candidate. You're simply wrong, and you apparently have no idea what you're talking about. The points I'm making actually work against Thompson -- it shows that despite his relatively high polling, the market perceives him as having a small (but finite) probability of winning.

There’s no chance, and yet only $2200 or so would bring his contract price up 5X compared to what it is today.

So do it. You'll lose $2200 in the end because you'll own shares that will eventually be worth $0.00. But, you will not have affected the probability of Hunter being GOP nominee at all, you will merely be trying to manipulate the market.

Hunter is a bargain because all that has to happen is that the Intrade results would be somewhat near his polling results. That’s a possible 40-to-1 return.

First of all, ARG is a joke polling firm, so take their numbers with a grain of salt. That aside, even at a 4% polling number, the likelihood of his getting the nomination is less than 1000:1, according to the current market. Polling numbers do not equal probabilities.

That is the IF, acknowledged as part of the analysis. Hunter would need to go from 4% to 5%. What are those chances? I would put them at about 2 to 1. So I would be taking a 2-to-1 bet to gain a 40-to-1 contract.

At 5% polling, the Hunter contract would still be valued at a zero probability. There's no "gain" to be had there.

Your fallacy is simple straw argumentation. Your claim is that the payout aim is for the whole kit & Caboodle, whereas it is plainly posted that the payout comes in at 40-to-1 if Hunter’s numbers on Intrade start to reflect his current polling numbers.

You're the one posting the "strawman" that polling numbers do or should equal probabilities. It doesn't matter what your payout aim is -- if there is no belief that the contract will ever by worth anything, then there's no incentive to trade for it at any price. The only way you can get your 40:1 payoff is for the market to believe that Hunter has a 4% chance to win the nomination, which will require a polling level much, much higher than 5%.

I have never claimed it, but the Intrade Market certainly takes that into account. Oh, and by the way, since I never claimed it, that’s another classic straw argument. Your analysis has gaping flaws, not just minor flaws.

Your whole "analysis" is based on the flawed concept that poll numbers and probabilities are essentially the same thing. No matter if you use the exact words or not, that's the underlying assumption of the whole topic here.

Basically, you say that IF Hunter's Intrade numbers start tracking his poll numbers, then you can see a 40:1 payout. But you fail to provide any kind of rational evidence as to why that would be so -- you seem to be relying on the implied "fact" that the poll number equates to a probability.

I honest to God don't believe you're silly enough to believe what you just wrote.

Hillary was First Lady for eight years and was hailed as a possible future candidate for most of that time. When she ran for the Senate in New York, most people knew that it was an attempt to copy what John F. Kennedy -- a Massachusetts native -- was able to do; vault from a Senate seat on the second-largest stage in American politics onto Pennsylvania Avenue.

When she was elected, Rudy, who had transformed New York City from an rotting, crime-ridden hellhole to a tourist-friendly metropolis in renaissance, became the anti-Hillary, the knight designated to issue the death blow to her hopes of getting on a track to the White House. Of course, he withdrew from the Senate race due to cancer, but it should never be forgotten that when he stopped his campaign, he was losing ground to her in the polls. Absent Rudy, Rick Lazio stepped forward to try and rally the forces, and came up WAY short. In her second campaign, nobody seriously tried to challenge her from either party. Now that she's made her move, Rudy has been assigned the difficult task of facing her again because nobody else from the Empire State has much of a chance of conquering her.

Everything I just wrote is true, and you know it. But for some reason, you're pretending that somehow, "the money" made all this happen instead of "the money" flowing to them because of what had already happened.

Before all this, no one knew who the h@ll Obama was....

That's right. And then he stepped to the podium at the Democratic National Convention in 2004 to great fanfare, and even with heightened expectations, blew EVERYBODY away. And by everybody, I mean liberals and conservatives and everybody in-between -- you can look it up. That was a great speech regardless of your ideology. He won in a landslide against Alan Keyes, who moved from Maryland to Illinois to get his can kicked. He wrote two books that topped the New York Times bestseller list. He became the darling of Oprah Winfrey, who is more respected among females than Hillary. That began the buzz about him challenging Hillary for the 2008 nomination even before his first term in the Senate was over.

Did "the money" make that happen? No, "the money" followed a person who showed great potential.

What's most frustrating to me about arguments such as yours is that you want to buck up the faithful that Hunter, who has been a cipher in the campaign, is viable even as you insist that the reasons other have left him in the dust have do with millions of dollars that Hunter won't attract and "subliminal suggestion and mind control." You sound like the people who say that a secret centuries-old cabal of shadowy moneymen control everything that happens in the world; they are keen on saying that it's really really for real, but they never have any ideas on what it is that any of us could possibly do anything to stop it.

On the other hand, when it comes to improving Hunter's chances, I HAVE an idea. Hunter should keep his powder dry until he can run from a more prominent position than "Congressman" to gain experience as a statewide figure. Fortunately, Arnold CAN'T run for President, so he doesn't have to worry about him being in the way.

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.