Posted on 11/15/2007 3:49:47 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
Republican presidential hopeful Fred Thompson brushed off concerns Thursday about his single-digit showings in recent Iowa and New Hampshire polls, saying he expects a new television ad on immigration will help boost his numbers. "In the past, a lot of things have changed in the Iowa presidential elections - Howard Dean can tell you that," he said, referring to 2004 when Dean's third-place showing in Iowa derailed his campaign for the Democratic nomination.
"So you've just got to do what you do and keep at it and understand that the end of the day is all that counts," he said.
CBS/New York Times polls in Iowa and New Hampshire show Thompson at 9 and 5 percent for Republicans, respectively. Mitt Romney leads both states with 34 percent in New Hampshire and 27 percent in Iowa.
Thompson, who was in New York for a fundraiser and a closed town-hall meeting, said he expects his recently released television ad in Iowa to help sway voters in that crucial state. The ad stresses the need to secure U.S. borders and enforce immigration laws.
Illegal immigration has divided Republicans and remains a critical issue to many GOP voters. This past summer, Arizona Sen. John McCain supported legislation that would have strengthened border security and allowed for many illegal immigrants to become citizens. The leading GOP contenders, Romney and Rudy Giuliani, both opposed the legislation, which was backed by President Bush (website - news - bio) but failed in the Senate.
On Thursday, Thompson reiterated that the government should strip federal dollars from cities and states that don't report illegal immigrants, and he criticized Giuliani for "going to court to preserve sanctuary cities" while he was mayor of New York City.
Giuliani has defended New York's so-called sanctuary policy, which stopped city workers from reporting suspected illegal immigrants. He sued the federal government to keep his city's policy.
"If we will enforce the border, if we will stop inducements like sanctuary cities, and we will tell employers that they're going to have to obey the law too, then over a period of time, this situation will turn much to the good," Thompson said.
The former Tennessee senator tried to highlight other differences between himself and Giuliani, who has been a supporter of gun control and abortion. Thompson is opposed to both.
He also said the Romney campaign should stop "whining" about losing the National Right To Life Committee's endorsement to him. Thompson said he believed the endorsement would help at the polls.
Kevmo, you have posted almost to the point of being obsessive that Hunter is the deal of the century, that the smart money is on him...
So then it begs the question:
How much of your “smart money” have you laid down?...
But despite his repeated spamming of this bogus "analysis" (which essentially boils down to: it will happen because I've assumed it happens), he doesn't seem to believe it enough to act on it.
Whoops, that should be $100.00/share, not $1.00/share.
WE HAVE A WINNER!
Why should I buy another man’s bull$h*t if he hasn’t bought it himself...
Its about who gets the nomination! No drive, no passion, no delegates, no nomination!
Here’s what I posted on the other thread in response to your contention.
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.
Looking at the advanced graphing, there has been no significant activity since mid-October (and that looks like a one-day spike), and the share price has been constant at the minimum trade value: $0.10.
***My analysis isn’t based upon the past price, it’s based upon what usually happens to futures contracts when the poll numbers are in variance with them. Huckabee’s poll numbers rise, so did his futures at Intrade. The relationship is not causal, but it is correlated.
What Kevmo fails to understand is that a political futures market is not the same as a commodities market.
***I posted that there is no underlying value to the asset in a prior post somewhere. You go fetch it. And I smoked your analysis on the other thread, it’s completely full of holes. You do not know what you are talking about.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1926032/posts?page=295#295
Since there is no conceivable way the Hunter contract is going to be the one contract priced at $1.00 in the end, the market has already assumed that it is worth $0.00 a share, and no one (not suffering from wishful thinking) is going to pay more than that.
***Look at Ron Paul. Just because the contract price is basically zero for 4 months didn’t stop it from going on up past Thompson. Once again your analysis is flawed. The source of your flaw is that you cannot stand seeing Thompson portrayed in an unflattering light. Well, he had the flattering light and he squandered it. Now is the time for the unflattering light to see if he is even worth keeping around. Hunter has had that unflattering light for a long time and he can take it. Thompson can’t. Once we shine a flattering light on Hunter, he will skyrocket.
Kevmo: The same analysis is over at Intrade and the same levels of discussion among traders appears to suggest that you do not know what you are talking about.
Kevkrom: That’s a bald lie,
***Baloney. That particular forum has the most number of recent views and posts by far. My article here on FR is essentially a summation of the case for Hunter as discussed in the Hunter and Thompson forums. If what you say is true, they would have been all over it as decrepit analysis. Let the readers decide for themselves:
http://bb.intrade.com/intradeForum/posts/list/1805.page
http://bb.intrade.com/intradeForum/posts/list/1797.page
I followed YOUR link. If that’s what you’re using to bolster your claims, you clearly are delusional.
***Your analysis got smoked over on that thread. Let the reader decide for themselves who is delusional.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1926032/posts?page=295#295
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1926032/posts?page=301#301
Next up from you: more bold and italics and capital letters, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Allow me to butt in.
I am not hiding K, I am right here, I am always easy to find. I just am not going to do your advertising for you. Your post is still there for all to see.
As for everything else you have said about this entire subject...
SHOW ME THE MONEY!
I have posted an answer to that.
Here’s part of it, not the whole of it.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1926032/posts?page=151#151
and also I’ve been accused of having an ulterior monetary motive. So you guys need to pick your poison.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1926422/posts?page=11#9
To: Kevmo
Duncan Hunter doesn’t even register in the California opinion polls. I think you’re trying to get the money back you gambled on him.
9 posted on 11/15/2007 4:49:55 PM PST by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
Asked & Answered.
I saw it. Not even a couple of bucks?
OK, Kevmo,
At your insistence and with a great deal of incredulity I followed your link to the Intrade forum, and guess what?
There is NOT ONE POST there that supports your stand-it-on-its heqad theory that there are no buyers for Hunters contract at 10 cents because it is overvalued. All there is is the same kind of navel gazing introspection and theorizing about how such aa great candidate as Duncal Hunter is and has been going exactly nowhere.
But, again, there is NOTHING, not one post in support of your BS.
So, you are now self-exposed as not only a fool, but a liar as well.
And Kevmo, please do not decieve yourself. You have NOT won any points with the crap you have been posting and, frankly if you are the calibre of suppporter that Duncan Hunter is attracting, it reflects rather badly on him.
John, you just don’t understand.
Fred Thompson sucks and he is preventing Duncan Hunter from breaking out as a candidate. Indeed Thompson being in the race distorts Duncan’s true numbers.
No facts can change that regardless if they are true.
Give up and back Hunter...
Think of how proud YOU will be to be one of those who gets him from 3 - 4 percent to 4 - 5 percent...
I'm sick of hearing this....what is he supposed to do....dance a jig at every campaign stop?
OK, Kevmo,
At your insistence and with a great deal of incredulity I followed your link to the Intrade forum, and guess what?
There is NOT ONE POST there that supports your stand-it-on-its heqad theory that there are no buyers for Hunters contract at 10 cents because it is overvalued.
***Here’s the first post on the forum. You are completely full of bovine feces.
http://bb.intrade.com/intradeForum/posts/list/1797.page
Delphi
Intrade
Joined: 11/09/2007 06:28:38
Messages: 106
Online
I’ve said all along that on paper at least, this guy has to be the conservative’s conservative. Now, if Mlipsky sees this he will remind everyone that as a liberal I have no “creds” on this issue so I’ll save him the trouble and agree that I could be missing something. But look at his wiki entry and it’s hard to argue with this notion. Plus he has a son in Iraq and was instrumental in getting a partial wall built along the Mexican border at a time when this is one of, if not the, most passionate issue among rank and file GOP voters. The obvious knocks against him as a potential nominee have been name recognition and fundraising - and both are still hurdles.
I wonder though if he isn’t picking up some steam as the immigration issue has advanced from a simmer to a low boil. As background, over the last few months he has done extremely well in several state straw polls. First he won in Arizona [1], beating a local fellow named John McCain. Then in SC [2] he finished a close third with Giuliani and McCain (164-162-158 ). Most recently he won in Texas [3] in a poll where the frontrunners didn’t attend but you could still vote for them (and some did). Now these are not the most scientific things, but as a measure what the movers and shakers in the party who bother to show up think, they could be a bellweather for how regular voters view him once they get familiar with him (assuming he reaches the critical mass to get to them). Note also that even though these look like small samples, at roughly 1,000 voters they rival in statistical power (if not in careful demographic representation) the Fox/CBS/WaPo/Gallup/USAT polls we all routinely react to in trading here.
Despite these straw polls however, he was still polling as an asterisk nationally until recently. I had honestly written him off for awhile. But now there may be some indication that the regular folks are starting to like what they see. They are famously underwhelmed with the current candidates, and Hunter does have a solid anti-abortion voting record — so he could even end up the “compromise” candidate that the hawks, evangelicals and business folks can all live with. I watch these polls and from time to time see him blip up to 1 or 2 in a single one, but never across the board. But now, in the 3 most recent polls listed at pollingreport.com [4], he’s trending upward (see below). He’s no Mike Huckabee yet, and this could be noise still, but he might be someone to watch — especially with the facetime he has gotten this week due to the southern CA fires. Stay tuned.
Fox: 3% (up from 1)
LA Times: 2 (up from 1)
CNN: 3 (up from 1)
[1] http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2007/01/16/news/top_stories/1_03_321_15_07.txt
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/0121mccain0120.html
[2]
http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/blogs/politicalticker/2007/03/mccain-wins-spartanburg-straw-poll.html
[3] http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/090207dntexstrawpoll.90d12f3f.html
[4] http://pollingreport.com/wh08rep.htm
Fred Thompson sucks and he is preventing Duncan Hunter from breaking out as a candidate. Indeed Thompson being in the race distorts Duncan’s true numbers.
No facts can change that regardless if they are true.
Give up and back Hunter...
Think of how proud YOU will be to be one of those who gets him from 3 - 4 percent to 4 - 5 percent...
***Here’s the 2nd & 3rd post from that phantom forum garbage that John says does not exist. This could be fun.
Tozikio
Intrade
Joined: 22/09/2007 23:58:21
Messages: 99
Online
I think Hunter simply probed a few soft spots in the campaign trail for publicity, while the real contenders were elsewhere. Illegal immigration is a hot button that all the candidates are willing to press, I don’t see a lot of leverage there.
To me the only guesswork, is whether he will drop out before Tancredo.
26/10/2007 03:15:50 Subject: Re:Duncan Hunter gaining traction?
Delphi
Intrade
Joined: 11/09/2007 06:28:38
Messages: 106
Online
Tozikio wrote:
Illegal immigration is a hot button that all the candidates are willing to press, I don’t see a lot of leverage there.
Actually from here it doesn’t sound like they are pressing those buttons much, perhaps because most of them have supported the “amnesty” approach to some degree or another in order to pander to the rich donors. And even if some of them do venture to give it lip service, to my knowledge he’s the only candidate who’s actually produced anything concrete (literally) to deal with the situation.
It seems surreal to me. I hear all this squawking about the “illegals invading” - yet the only candidates who are talking tough about it (Tancredo and Paul as well) are still in the low single digits. It must be because I’m a liberal and am used to being surrounded by rational behavior. Maybe this is normal on the Republican side. (There, that’ll give Mlipsky a formal invite to the conversation!)
John, you are the liar.
Here are the 4th, 5th & 6th posts from that forum.
How many more do I need to post before you are exposed for the liar that you are? Or do you think I’m inventing this stuff?
Intrade
Joined: 14/10/2007 03:02:32
Messages: 2
Offline
Illegal immigration works better as a “stick it to the Democrats” issue for Republicans. It only really appeals to a small, but vocal, segment of the working class (both left and right). A wall and deport candidate will be perceived as unelectable, and will be unappealing to those with money to donate.
Additionally, hispanics tend to be conservative on many key issues. Going too far to the right on immigration alienates hispanic voters. The Republican party is making an effort to appeal to hispanic voters. Being hard on abortion but moderate on immigration garners more votes. Turning out the core conservatives won’t work anymore. It took eight years, but they finally figured it out.
Maybe when someone starts to fall, they’ll make a stink over immigration? Until then, serious candidates have the general election to think about. . .
26/10/2007 06:48:27 Subject: Re:Duncan Hunter gaining traction?
andywend
Intrade
Joined: 04/09/2007 22:44:54
Messages: 85
Offline
Delphi:
You’re absolutely right here. Duncan Hunter is a conservative’s conservative and would make a fantastic president.
I got an email a while back which asked 11 different questions to determine which candidate is most in line with one’s views.
Duncan Hunter came out on top easily with Fred Thompson a clear 2nd. The bottom 2 were Dennis Kuninch and Christopher Dodd. I would imagine if you answered the 11 questions, the results would be the exact opposite.
Delphi, just to make one thing clear. Just because we have completely opposite political views, doesn’t mean I think you are a bad person. It only means that I disagree with you politically.
I realize that the republicans have gotten quite SOFT on illegal immigration but that doesn’t mean the problem doesn’t exist. Whether we like it or not, hispanics are making up a larger and larger percentage of voters and it won’t be too long when they will be the group deciding our elections.
The republicans are wasting their time going after the black vote and as long as blacks hand over their votes to the democrats, they will never get adequate representation from the federal government. If they showed the slightest bit of willingness to vote republican as a group, I think the party would bend over backwards to fight for them.
The hispanics control the future of the republican party (and the democratic party for that matter) and the republicans have decided to vigorously fight for their votes.
The federal government (under both parties) has proven to be ineffective in properly managing social security, education, etc. If the democrats get their wish and the government completely takes over medicine, it will be an absolute disaster.
The quality of medical care under the current system is the best in the world and socializing the system will wind up destroying it. Instead, the democrats should concentrate on trying to get all these uninsured people access to this great medical care system currently in place in the U.S.
I appreciate the invite to the conversation and hope all is well.
26/10/2007 08:27:44 Subject: Re:Duncan Hunter gaining traction?
Delphi
Intrade
Joined: 11/09/2007 06:28:38
Messages: 106
Online
Andywend, thanks for your thoughts. I don’t actually take biting disagreement here too personally (hence the invitation to Mlipsky, unofficial attack dog of the right here, to dive into this one). One nice thing about this forum is that no matter our often wildly divergent political views, we all share a riveted fascination with futures markets. Since accurate conract appraisal requires dispassionate objectivity and inclusion of all available information and perspectives, there’s that incentive to have civil, all-engaging discussion.
So in that spirit (!) I’ll decline to bite too much into your comments here on health care delivery - except to say that I expect we will always have a thriving private health care industry that exists on top of a basic safety-net level universal coverage (however that ends up implemented, as I’m certain it will be).
It’s my take too (Dessalines and Andywend) that immigration presents both parties with a difficultly-navigated minefield. Your posts though make me wonder if I’m not sufficiently appreciating the interest the GOP has in avoiding alienating Hispanic citizens on this issue. I’m well aware they trend Democrat at the ballot box (except for Cuban-Americans), but are on the whole socially conservative, but maybe had a blind spot to the tightrope act the GOP was playing with them on getting tough on their cultural cousins who are flouting the law to get here. More specifically, I guess I have assumed that dealing with the ire on this issue coming from the “anglo” working class GOP rank and file dwarfed that concern (of alienating potentially swing-voting hispanics). I take it you think this segment which is up in arms about this is small enough not to be a significant driving factor in policy, or even enduring rhetoric? I confess I’m not familiar enough with the hard numbers (of who cares fervently about this issue, by voting preference). It would be useful to see this kind of info. But at least from anecdotal observance, they seem like a hugely vocal contingent on the internet - and from my personal experience, in public.
I agree with the nexus Dessalines points to between the big donors and the tack the party is going to take on this issue. Still I don’t see why a Tancredo or a Hunter can’t make better hay out of this by talking it up non-stop. Remember that these long-shot candidates (like Dodd and Richardson from the other side) have everything to gain by going for broke and tacking further away from the middle in order to stay in the game longer. I guess they are trying but the money issue means that no one will hear it.
Still, if the constituency is large and motivated enough (which I thought it was), why aren’t they actively seeking out these second-tier candidates and at least finding them on the internet, if not on their TVs? Nearly everyone has some web access, even if it’s the local library. I guess that’s the thing I don’t get. The Tancredo/Hunter/Paul trio is pretty “pure” on this issue, but their polling total is in single digits. I could swear that even the portion of the GOP primary voters for whom this is a viable “single issue” would be twice that much, easily. Clearly I’m still missing something.
This particular post from the Intrade Duncan Hunter forum was definitely included and considered in my comment that “NOT ONE POST there supports your stand-it-on-its head theory that there are no buyers for Hunters contract at 10 cents because it is overvalued.”
And now that you have posted this example here for everyone to see, there won’t be any question abbout who is telling the truth and who is the liar.
To repeat, and now with the evidence to back me up posted so kindly by you:
There is NOT ONE POST there that supports your stand-it-on-its head theory that there are no buyers for Hunter’s contract at 10 cents because it is overvalued.
All there is is the same kind of navel gazing introspection and theorizing about how such a great candidate Duncan Hunter is and how he - for no good reason - has been going exactly nowhere.
But, again, there is NOTHING, not one post in support of your BS.
So, you are now self-exposed as not only a fool, but a liar as well.
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.