Posted on 12/31/2007 12:05:51 AM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
hillary wishes to be prez. and to hell with the victims.
Fool's gold.
electability is top concern for me.
Go Fred.
Still wavering between Mitt and Fred.
He has to finish strong in Iowa because it is part of the heartland.
No, that's Hillary.
If he's $57,000 short, why did his campaign manager send this to me on Friday?
We did it! Dear jelibn,
I just wanted to send a quick note to let you know that we've more than exceeded our goal of $248,846, and raised over $266,000 (total right now is actually $291,744). We issued a bold challenge, and you responded in kind. Our new ad 'Substance,' which began running today, will stay on the air in Iowa statewide through the Caucus on January 3rd. Thank you very much to everyone who contributed. It means a lot to Fred while he's in Iowa campaigning hard.
If you haven't gotten a chance to watch the new ad yet, you can view it here.
Thanks for everything you're doing for the campaign,
William B. Lacy Campaign Manager
With confidence this high, it suggests that Fred’s dropout contract at Intrade would make a good short at 28%. The only other candidate trading higher is John Edwards. And Fred’s volume is the highest of all the offerings for January, so it’s not as thin a market as other dropout contracts.
DROPOUT.JAN08.(F)THOMPSON
Fred Thompson to drop out of 2008 Presidential race on/before 31 Jan 2008 M 10.0 - 28.0 60 0
Also, Fred’s contract to win Iowa is an even better bargain at 0.1.
REP.IOWA.THOMPSON(F)
Fred Thompson to Win M 0.1 1.4 0.1 642 -1.4
For the Iowa caucus, Thompson is at the bottom of the pack, Romney has regained the lead from Huckabee. Ron Paul and Hunter are both embedded together, so there’s no way of knowing if he’s gaining ground, but on the basis of the president.field contract moving 50% today, I’d say he’s probably at ~0.3 and Ron Paul is at ~4.5, which puts Hunter ahead of Thompson.
Caucus
REP.IOWA.HUCKABEE
Mike Huckabee to Win M 45.0 46.0 45.0 1690 +5.0
REP.IOWA.ROMNEY
Mitt Romney to Win M 40.2 54.9 50.0 1960 0
REP.IOWA.THOMPSON(F)
Fred Thompson to Win M 0.1 1.4 0.1 642 -1.4
REP.IOWA.MCCAIN
John McCain to Win M 0.6 4.4 0.2 860 -2.8
REP.IOWA.GIULIANI
Rudy Giuliani to Win M - 0.1 0.1 701 0
REP.IOWA.FIELD
Field (any other individual) to Win M 4.7 5.9 4.8 1384 +1.0
2008.PRES.FIELD
Field (any other candidate) to win 2008 US Presidential Election M 0.2 0.3 0.2 14910 +0.1
.
.
.
.
According to Intrade, the winner of the December 12th GOP debate was... Duncan Hunter.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1938773/posts
Why the smart money is on Duncan Hunter
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1926032/posts
In this Iowa poll Hunter is up 3% and even with Paul and Thompson.
http://www.wxyz.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=3481ef60-8195-46a9-af04-b87b907bcfdd
Reply to this
OK, so electability isn’t the single criterion.
So, name me another criterion where Fred does not ALSO come out on top.
I don’t know of one.
You missed the point. Electability is ethereal. It changes with such volatility- A booger hanging from a candidates nose during a debate is enough to tank him for good. It changes weekly too. Giuliani was the shoe-in, then Fred, then Huck, now Romney... And then there's the whole problem of what the candidate will do once elected, when his promises no longer matter.
Far better to rely on a candidate with a good record and proven principles. Let the chips fall where they may.
I can..."This guy must be working for Hillary"...
NONE of the above are electable...
There are basically 3 groups of affected voters...There is the majority of Republicans, you followers who will vote for any Republican the establishment tells you to vote for...
Then there's the far right...Many of them are likely to stay at home and 'let God sort it out' if Huckabee is not the choice...
And then you have the fence sitters, the Independants and the conservative (more conservative than many Republican) Democrats...
Those last two groups are the ones that count...Without them, you lose...And neither Fred, nor the rest of the establishment lackeys have anything to offer them...
A vote for one of those five is a vote for Hillary...
TRUE.
I think you missed the point. Electability is not as ethereal as you are trying to imply. Don't confuse it with momentary popularity. "Electable" means that you have a shot at winning. Ron Paul is somebody's darling, but the base knows that he is not electable. Mike Huckabee is somebody's darling this month, but he's not going to get the nomination because he wouldn't be able to win. He would be too polarizing to the party and the country, and wouldn't pull in the swing voters. Rudy is "electable", even though I would have to hold my nose with vise grips while voting. Fred will always be 'electable', even if he happens to be polling low right now, and no booger is going to change that. If you just dismiss "electability" and go with whatever yo-yo you happen to 'feel' good about, you are going to end up with Hillary. She is the fools gold result of your agreement.
agreement = argument
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.