Is Fred Dead or Just Resting?

Real Clear Politics ^ | 20 November 2007 | Tom Bevan

[Spiff]

November 20, 2007

Is Fred Dead or Just Resting?

TOM BEVAN

In early October I argued there was a disconnect between the way the pundits and voters viewed Fred Thompson's candidacy. Sitting here six weeks later, however, evidence continues to pour in that Thompson has completely underwhelmed the Republican electorate.

It seems like every other day a new poll comes out in a key early state showing Fred losing ground - sometimes significant ground. Indeed, if you take a look at groups that have conducted at least two surveys since early September (when Thompson officially entered the race and began campaigning) the trend lines are unmistakable:

Thompson is now running a distant fourth in Iowa, has almost dropped off the charts to sixth place in New Hampshire, is running in 3rd place in South Carolina about 4 points behind Romney and Giuliani, and has fallen well off the pace into 3rd in Florida.

The national polls aren't as important, but still reflect the same downward trend:

Thompson has shed seven and a half points in the RCP Average since he officially entered the race.

This is more than a candidate not being able to sustain a "bump." In fact, outside of the NRLC endorsement last week, it's hard to find any positive evidence for Thompson at the moment. To the contrary, backers of Thompson are now expressing doubts to the press.

So can Thompson turn it around? As we all know by now, anything is possible in politics. And, as is usually the case, it all starts with Iowa. With New Hampshire effectively off the table, Thompson's campaign cannot afford a poor showing in Iowa or it'll be on life support by the time South Carolina rolls around.

Indeed, Larry Kudlow reports in his column today that the Thompson folks are now focusing heavily on Iowa:

[Thompson's] campaign strategists told me they are pouring tons of money into Iowa advertising. They see a strong opportunity for a Thompson surge in the state, undermining Romney and inflicting damage on Giuliani.

Watch and see if the NRLC endorsement and increased spending in Iowa spark a turnaround for Thompson. At this point, it's his best (and perhaps only) hope of staying in the game long enough to score a win in South Carolina - a state no eventual Republican nominee for president has ever lost.

[Romneyfor President2008]

Happy Thanksgiving!! But I HATE turkey!! LOL

[dennisw]

LOL LOL LOL

[Reagan Man]

>>>>>As to Mitt not doing as well in the national polls, that is to be expected...

LOL But of course. I would expect you to say nothing else.

You're missing the big picture. Everything doesn't hinge on Iowa and NH alone and state polls have always been highly volatile. I think Fred is pinning his best chances on sweeping the south. We'll see just how far Fred can go.

Rooty is sitting back and enjoying his lead, as conservatives split their support among the rest of the field. I still don't see how Romney beats Rooty. Never gonna happen.

[fabian]

that’s bad...it sounds like Rudy would be a better vote than Romney...more honest and at least fiscally very conservative. My primary vote will be going to Fred though. I think he will get better as we get closer to the voting.

[Swordfished]

Conservative positions should not need “revealingâ€� if one is an actual Conservative...

Open your eyes and the truth will be revealed to you....alien Mormons will visit you in an O.B.E. soon after inaugeration day.

[Reagan Man]

>>>>>I frankly don’t care that Romney is a liberal RINO and not a conservative.

Gotcha!

From a conservative perspective, Mitt is not a conservative. Period. His support around FR is weak. Against two staunch conservatives, roughly 86% of FReepers do not support him. That matters to me. I don't want someone running for POTUS who will not promote my conservative values, beliefs, convictions and principles.

>>>>>I was very ideological in college. I guess I outgrew all that.

One man made a difference for America and for conservatism. You need a good dose of Ronald Reagan:

“We will have no more of those candidates who are pledged to the same goals as our opposition and who seek our support. Turning the Party over to the so-called moderates wouldn’t make any sense at all.”

~~~ Ronald Reagan, 1965

“Join me in a dream of a California whose government isn't characterized by political hacks and cronies and relatives--an administration that doesn't make its decisions based on political expediency but on moral truth. Together, let us find men to match our mountains.”

~~~ Ronald Reagan, 1966

“A political party cannot be all things to all people. It must represent certain fundamental beliefs which must not be compromised to political expediency, or simply to swell its numbers.

I do not believe I have proposed anything that is contrary to what has been considered Republican principle. It is at the same time the very basis of conservatism. It is time to reassert that principle and raise it to full view. And if there are those who cannot subscribe to these principles, then let them go their way.”

~~~ Ronald Reagan, March 1, 1975

[flaglady47]

“You’re missing the big picture.”

No I’m not. What will be very interesting is if none of the candidates end up a clear winner, like a one-third split between say, Romney, Thompson, Guiliani. Wouldn’t that be a hoot? Then the decision would be thrown into the Pub convention in September in Minnesota. That would be one whopper of a convention. Who’d bother watching the Dem convention in comparison to what the Pub one would be? Even the MSM would be panting over televising it. Unless, of course, by some odd quirk the same thing happens with the Dems, but it won’t. Hillary will get it for the Dems. I’d be glued to the TV to see who would come out on top, although, the decisions would probably take place in the formerly smoked filled backrooms.

[Kevmo]

I frankly don’t care that Romney is a liberal RINO and not a conservative.
***Are you sure you are a fan of Romney? Maybe you didn’t get the latest list of talking points, that he doesn’t want it KNOWN that he’s a liberal RINO? How does this further Romney in anyone’s eyes here on Free Republic?

.

.

Why the smart money is on Duncan Hunter
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1926032/posts
Posted on 11/15/2007 3:43:17 AM PST by Kevmo

[Kevmo]

the decisions would probably take place in the formerly smoked filled backrooms.
***That doesn’t strike me as a good thing.

.

.

.

Why the smart money is on Duncan Hunter
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1926032/posts
Posted on 11/15/2007 3:43:17 AM PST by Kevmo

[fieldmarshaldj]

Rudy is maybe marginally more honest than Romney (at least a “Republican”, albeit it was Bloomingidiot, succeeded Rudy, so one can say he was more “successful” at passing off his office to an “R”), but the only thing that he’s a Conservative on is law & order (but frankly, any liberal could have a law & order city by simply allowing the police to do their jobs). But Rudy was an apologist for illegals, and that’s a no go, too. I think Rudy is being outright disingenuous claiming he’ll appoint Conservatives to the bench. I mean, let’s say you or I got elected President, would you appoint people to positions of authority that are 180 degrees away from what you believe in ? Of course not, and neither would I.

The diff between Rudy and Romney is that Rudy is still claiming to be a liberal but wanting to appoint Conservatives while Romney is lying about a conversion to Conservatism after years in politics of touting and voting for the opposite.

Presidential nomination contests in our party ought to be about parading our best and brightest and most successful Conservative leaders, instead, it’s about power-whoring and media ass-kissing liberal RINOs that are the absolute worst of what we have to offer and the bane of the Conservative movement in a battle of who has the biggest ego and who can tell whoppers about how Conservative they “really” are. I expect that bullcrap from rodents, not Republicans. It’s an insult to the legacy of Reagan.

[fieldmarshaldj]

“A political party cannot be all things to all people. It must represent certain fundamental beliefs which must not be compromised to political expediency, or simply to swell its numbers." -- Reagan

Bingo. As I said earlier in the thread to the guy that criticized me for not wanting an "inclusive" party, that if you want a big tent, go to the circus. The parties are ideologically based now, and it took a long time to get there. I could never understand how you could function as a viable party with a substantial percent that essentially stood against everything you believe in. If the Democrats want their pure leftist party, let them have it, and we'll take their Conservative members. Conversely, for the liberal RINOs who want to pursue the agenda of abortion, militant gay rights, anti-WOT, high taxes, nanny state, pro-illegals, go join the Democrats. We don't want you.

[fieldmarshaldj]

You know that if Hillary’s nomination were in doubt, she’d be arranging for a little plane ride for Obama ‘n friends. ;-)

[Reagan Man]

Excellent comments tonight, fieldmarshaldj, in support of conservatism and Fred T.

Later

[MitchellC]

All this pundit talk about Fred’s campaign being dead is just proof that they badly need something to talk about. FDT is still second nationally with well over a month before the first votes. That liberal NH’s rejection of Fred is supposed to be proof of his death is just laughable.

I’m not saying Fred will win it. I’m just saying that this thing is so wide open and can go in so many different directions that anyone who declares the end of any of the top tier candidates right now is just not dealing in reality. There are just too many variables.

[fieldmarshaldj]

Thanks. G’night to you. ;-)

[TN4Liberty]

Iowa really isn’t important, I don’t think, because it’s not a true primary. I think just about anyone would say so as well.

Anyone except those morons who report the news.

[Romneyfor President2008]

I was just reacting to what the majority of Freepers think of Romney. This is clearly Fred/Hunter country. Even if I think Romney is a conservative, or my kind of conservative, it is irrelevant. So when I say Romney is not a conservative, I mean he is not a conservative to Freepers. When in Rome.

[ChocChipCookie]

From where I stand, there seems to be a continuum here at FR. 100% conservative purists are at one end. 100% practical conservatives at the other. The practicals say, “Anyone but Hillary!” The purists say, “Conservatives first! If they’re not a pure conservative, I’ll stay home!” I don’t think it’s WRONG to be at either end or somewhere in between, although the purists will argue with me on that point!! (If they didn’t, they wouldn’t be purists!) Where we each fall on that continuum is a combination of our own experiences, background, even personality.

We have the candidates we have. We would all love to have a candidate who has the conservative principles of Hunter, the name recognition of McCain/Giuliani/Thompson, the money and business credentials of Romney, ...not sure what Huckabee’s strongest virtue is... Anyway, this is the group we have and certainly ONE of them will be our nominee. I don’t think that personal attacks on each other are what FR is about nor do they help win anyone over to someone’s favored candidate.

Personally, I tend to be more practical, but that’s my nature in most things.

[Types_with_Fist]

Yes, wasn’t he on Jay Leno once?

Only on Leno once? Well, that's it then... he isn't serious at all. < /s>

[Romneyfor President2008]

I couldn’t agree more. I think some of the purists here take politics a little too seriously and sensitive. Reminds me of people at Star Trek conventions who fight over Kirk or Picard. LOL