The FR community is living a vacuum - Thompson is not getting the traction and Hunter is off the radar. I will take Huck, Huckster, Huckleberry, whatever you want to call him, any day of the week over the slick, gun-grabbing, flip-flopping northeast weasels he’s up against. Flame away, I don’t care; this about the Supreme Court, the understanding of Islam's danger, and stopping Clinton. Huckabee's beat them twice on their home turf; he'll do it again.
Huckabee’s beat them twice on their home turf; he’ll do it again.
Bill ran against the Huck?
Huckster will lose to Hillary . He would be branded an Evangelical Zealot and it would lead to his defeat .
"Likely" is a stronger word than I would use. I don't rule out the possibility that he could pull off an upset, but he's coming off at 18 to 1. Possible, but I wouldn't call it likely.
The FR community is living a vacuum
I'd call it an echo chamber. FR is really good at reinforcing what folks want to believe, even if, as the song goes, it ain't necessarily so.
For example, everyone knows that no one pays any attention to the MSM any more. Fox News and the blogs are kicking the MSM's butt around the block. But wait -- Bill O'Reilly, who has the highest-rated show on FNC or on any cable/satellite news network, draws about half a million viewers on an average evening. The New York Times has a paid daily circulation of 1.1 million. Perky Katie Couric, by far the weakest of the big-3 news anchors, gets 7.9 million.
A lot of FReepers have a tendency to disregard news they don't like, to dismiss polls they don't like as biased or stacked, and then to be shocked when an election doesn't go the way they'd hoped. It's reminiscent of Pauline Kael, then a movie critic for the New York Times, in 1968; she simply could not believe that Nixon had won the election, because "everyone I know voted for McGovern."
Thompson is not getting the traction and Hunter is off the radar.
I really don't get what Fred is doing. At a time when he needs some momentum, when he ought to be out on the hustings (no, I don't know what that means, but it has something to do with campaigning) giving stump speeches in IA and NH twice a day and three times on Sunday, he seems pretty lackadaisical about the whole thing. Now, in an abstract sense, that could be a plus -- the best man to hold the office of President is often the man who doesn't want it too much. But Fred is running for president like a kid who's put on the spot at thanksgiving dinner, asked to perform the song he sang at the school recital -- he's looking down, shuffling his feet and looking a lot like he wishes he were somewhere else.
As far as Hunter goes, of course every candidate has to say he thinks he can win. But in his heart of hearts, I don't think he ever really believed it. In any contested primary, there are always "get the message out" candidates - folks who have no realistic chance of winning the nomination, but can gain a lectern at the debates, and some media attention, for their pet issues. And because they're not likely to win, those folks can be blunt, and are much more entertaining than the packaged and rehearsed "top-tier" candidates.
Examples of the kind of candidate I'm talking about: Alan Keyes, Steve Forbes, Gary Bauer, Dennis Kucinich, Al Sharpton, Mike Gravel, and -- face it, kids -- Ron Paul.
this about [...] stopping Clinton. Huckabee's beat them twice on their home turf; he'll do it again.
Huh? Huckabee has never run against a Clinton. He won his first elected office, lieutenant governor, in the same year Clinton was elected president. Jim Guy Tucker, arguably Clinton's hand-picked successor, resigned after a felony conviction, and Huck, as Lt. Gov., moved into the big office. He never rain a campaign against Tucker.
But hey. You gotta believe. In particular, you gotta believe in ...
wait for it ...
a place called Hope.