Posted on 11/20/2007 8:47:19 PM PST by Spiff
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:
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.
Is Fred Dead or Just Resting?
TOM BEVAN [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.
Thanks, fieldmarshal. Do you happen to have a link for his re-examination on that and/or when he re-canted?
Your feisty, fantasy life is absurd. You candidate is a dud, and your denials are making a fool of yourself.
You’re welcome! I stole my tagline from another Freeper, so why not?
All Spiff did was post an article that used poll numbers as facts (do you disagree with the facts stated in the article?), yet because they are not glowing towards Fred you spew hateful intentions to him.
Spiff has been great showing us charts showing trends, and just because he likes Mitt better doesn't mean his charts are wrong, or put out just to bring Fred down.
Yesterday, seeing Freepers rip Brit Hume of all people because he was having a political discussion regarding Fred falling in the polls was beyond comprehension. Sometimes I wonder if some of the Fred supporters wouldn't be happier if this website wasn't renamed Fred Republic. We are in the beginning of the GOP primary, and Fred can still pull it out, but just because someone expresses doubt that it can be done, does not mean the "hate" Fred, or if by some miracle does pull it out, that we won't all rally behind him at that time.
My eyes are open, as are the eyes of 86% of Free Republic.
Interesting you make a Mormon jab though, since I have never said anything about Mitt’s relgion, nor do I care until he makes it an issue, if he ever does.
Interesting...
You're right... Try typing in the url fredrepublic.com, and see what happens.
lol
You know, I have never alerted on one individual poster before, and I am not going to start now, but I have read your posts over the years and agreed with most. Tonight your vitriol is over the top. I have been on this website as long as you have, so according to your "judge" criteria, I have as much right to speak as you do. YOU ARE RUDE. You are not helping your candidate at all.
I don't know if you "hit the bottle" in the middle of the night, or if you have just hit your boiling point, but if you want others to actually listen and be persuaded by your opinions tone it down. If instead, this is just your preferred posting style I won't bother to respond anymore, because frankly, you are just not worth it.
Unbelievable!
Go Mitt Go! Clinton ‘08!
Good luck and God bless with your home-schooling!
Given the timing ofthe post, I think Mitt must have the living-in-mom’s-basement voters all wrapped up.
I agree with you completely on this point. If I were in charge, the primaries wouldn't start until February, and only Iowa and New Hampshire would be allowed to have primaries in February. The other states would rotate starting positions beginning in March, and there would be no "super Tuesday" primaries. We'd get a chance to look at every candidate and see how he or she performed over the long campaign.
Bill
I'm afraid that they learned that trick from the 2004 election. I still wonder whether President Bush would have beaten Kerry if we hadn't had homosexual marriage on the ballot in eleven states (or however many it was). California had a controversy about school books recently. I think they were eliminating references to Christmas or something of that nature because a state judge ruled that these references violated the state constitution's separation clause. I've wondered if Republicans shouldn't get amendments on the 2008 ballots to say that school books can contain religious references. That kind of referendum might get our people to the polls again.
Bill
Several reasons. The primary one is that they serve a relatively small constituency, and so have no national, or even statewide, recognition. It also means that they only need appeal to a narrow segment to be elected, which often translates into lack of broader appeal needed to win nationally. Senators and Governors need to win approval on a statewide basis, and so tend to have more populist positions.
Senators tend to be centrist and Representatives tend to be more partisan to the Right or Left, depending on their district. The nature of the way the House conducts business tends to highlight this.
Then, there is the fact that there are 100 Senators and 50 Governors. Congressmen get lost in the crowd of 435. This means they have less influence on policy, and therefore less appeal to the money donors.
“I dont know why anyone thought FT would be the big conservative savior. Maybe because he looks the part?”
Because many people really really wanted him to be. Don’t expect the “True Believers” to let go until there is no spark of life whatsoever in FDT campaign....and maybe not even then.
Welcome back!
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.