Puhleeze. I'm not the one saying "the smart money" is on a darker-than-dark horse. My side is based on history, not Judy Tenuta-like insistence that "It could happen!"
***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.
1. My argument is NOT that "you CAN'T", it's that at this moment, HUNTER can't. He's a red guy in a blue state who has been in Congress for over a quarter-century, but almost anonymously. He was the first Republican to declare his candidacy, but has not distinguished himself as a contender.
2. Quayle didn't need name recognition because he was NOT running for President, George H.W. Bush was. Even so, Quayle had indeed proven his viability as a statewide candidate by winning a Senate seat. Don't misstate my position, which is this:
Of the Presidents that weren't elected on the strength of their leadership of U.S. forces to victory as Generals (Washington, Taylor, Grant, Garfield, Eisenhower) there have been only five that 1) weren't elected Governor of their state, and 2) also didn't rise as high as the U.S. Senate...
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.
You're misinterpreting my response. I did not "acknowledge [your] case," I replied "Under ideal conditions, perhaps" to your statement that "Character is more important than name recognition because you cannot buy character."
Smithee: 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.
Kevmo: ***Yes, Hunter could buy that kind of publicity.
Why hasn't he? And how come he hasn't done as well as Huckabee, a former governor?
Dan Quayle had it granted to him as a result of the process.
Dan Quayle, again, was selected to run with a sitting VP as his running mate. He wasn't running for President. If Hunter is selected as the GOP nominee's running mate, then we'll talk.
Kevmo: A 12 year old could run against Hitlery if he was conservative enough to get the liberal media into an anti-conservative frenzy.
I have backed up my assertions with historical record and facts. What do you base that assertion on besides hope?
Puhleeze. I’m not the one saying “the smart money” is on a darker-than-dark horse. My side is based on history, not Judy Tenuta-like insistence that “It could happen!”
***Hunter polls at 4%, and he’s hoping for 5% so he can stay in the Iowa debates. If he’s at 5%, what do you put the odds of Intrade results going to ~5? Huckabee and Ron Paul both seem to have had it happen to them so why would Hunter be exempt?
As for your other contentions, you’re going round & round on name recognition and history and electability, whereas this thread is about how a certain bet might play out at Intrade and how that would help the candidate and the persons placing such a bet. So if you want me to answer, point me to another thread where the topic is more suitable.