Goodbye Fred

Manchester (NH): Fred Thompson spent most of caucus night in Iowa hovering between third and fourth place -- a far cry from the lofty first-place position he held in Rasmussen's poll of likely Republican caucus-goers last June. It has been a long time since Thompson has made a compelling reason to be in this race. And it should be a very short time before he confesses a compelling reason to exit stage right. A bystander in his own race, Thompson's political what-could-have-been slipped through his fingers long before he announced his candidacy. “The process for running for president has begun so early,” says GOP political strategist Charlie Gerow, “that if you are not in the game, you are not in the game … and Fred Thompson was never in the game.” Larry Sabato, who directs the University of Virginia’s Center for Politics, says “the biggest loser of 2008 is already known: Fred Thompson. The biggest pre-candidacy buildup since Ted Kennedy in the 1980 cycle has led to the same result -- a failure to come close to fulfilling his high expectations.” The short story of Fred Thompson started just about a year ago at the conservative love-fest known as the Conservative Political Action Convention, or CPAC. There, hints of a Thompson hat-toss began. By late spring, he was all the rage. He hit his high note with a clever video smacking down docudrama king Michael Moore. Suddenly, the political and media worlds could not get enough of Fred. It was his shining moment -- except that Fred forgot to shine. Summer came and went. So did a whole lot of staff and a whole lot of opportunities.

His eventual announcement in September came with a hefty price tag -- the Republican Primary voters in New Hampshire. He chose to announce on Jay Leno’s show, bypassing the first New Hampshire debate the same evening.

“He was an attractive idea, an image, and the reality couldn’t match it,” Sabato says. “This may be the fate of anyone touted as the next Reagan. Reagan is no longer a man. He’s a myth. No living human being can fulfill those expectations.”

“My opinion of what happened to Fred Thompson is that he turned out to be ... Fred Thompson,” adds Matt Lebo, political science professor at New York’s Stony Brook University.

“I don't think it’s just his late entry -- that is just a symptom of the problem,” Lebo says. “The problem is that he has never shown a willingness to fight for conservative causes. Believing in those causes isn't enough. There should be some evidence that you are willing to do something about it.”

While comparisons have been made to the failed 2004 campaign of Wesley Clark, those may not be fair. Clark was a political novice; Thompson is not.

“I think he was expecting to ride in, pick up the bouquet, and that would be that,” says Bert A. Rockman, head of the political science department at Purdue University. “It doesn’t work that way.

“People confuse appearance with reality. Thompson played hard-as-nails authority figures on TV and in the movies. But his campaign had no distinctiveness, no comparative advantage.”

Somehow, someone must have convinced Thompson that times had changed and he could run a different kind of campaign, one that suited his low-key approach to politics. A campaign sans rubber-chicken dinners, moldy bus tours and all the other degrading aspects of running for president.

Tack on the misconceptions that tens of millions of dollars were waiting for him, that he could easily round up organizational support -- and that pretty much sums up why the promise of Fred never happened.

As the country shifts its gaze toward New Hampshire, Thompson stands to fare even worse here than he did in Iowa. As of Friday morning, he was polling sixth among likely Republican voters.

So, the near-term question for Fred Thompson isn't if he drops out of the race but when.

Dear Kevmo,

“***Hunter didn’t campaign much in Iowa.”

Yes, because he lacked resources to make an all-out effort.

I'd be shocked if Mr. Thompson doesn't get 10 or 20 times the percentage of votes in New Hampshire that Mr. Hunter got in Iowa, and I doubt that Mr. Hunter will get more than half the percentage in New Hampshire that Mr. Thompson received in Iowa.

“The first primary was Wyoming, where Romney won 8, Thompson won 3, and Hunter won 1.”

Wyoming wasn’t strongly contested by anyone, so I’m not all that willing to ascribe much meaning to its results, good or bad for any particular candidate.

“They [Iowa] don’t really elect their delegates until April, so it’s basically a beauty contest, nonbinding.”

That’s true, but, for good or ill, Iowa’s beauty contest has a significant effect on the ultimate nomination. This beauty contest:

1) pretty much ended Mr. Tancredo’s candidacy;

2) significantly harmed Mr. Romney’s candidacy;

3) breathed additional life into Mr. McCain’s candidacy;

4) caused Mr. Huckabee’s chances to soar;

5) given Mr. Thompson the opportunity to fight another day;

6) shown the inherent, crippling, fatal weakness of Mr. Hunter’s candidacy;

7) damaged Mrs. Clinton’s candidacy;

8) made Mr. Obama the Democrat front-runner;

9) made Mr. Edwards’ candidacy viable; and

10) ended the candidacy of Messrs. Dodd and Biden.

Quite powerful for a beauty contest.

"Since Hunter is the most conservative in the race, and he’s made it this far on a shoestring budget, that makes him a more-bang-for-the-buck better candidate than Thompson, who squandered a 30 point lead on Intrade and enviable name recognition.”

I don’t really care what Intrade says about the race - to me it’s meaningless data, especially at this point in the campaign. There is a reason why Mr. Hunter is running his campaign on a shoestring - he has been entirely unable to attract campaign contributions in any significant amount. That goes to the heart of his candidacy; it shows the inherent weakness of his candidacy.

Let's face it, there are some candidates who are attracting millions of dollars each quarter. Some are doing better than others, but they're all able to raise money in amounts that might be called big league. But Mr. Hunter isn't one of those candidates. He didn't have the resources to campaign in Iowa because he is insufficiently attractive as a candidate to raise the resources that he needed. Mr. Hunter has been running for a year or so, and has raised less money than Mr. Thompson raises in a few weeks or a month at most.

Mr. Hunter isn’t a “more-bang-for-the-buck” candidate. He's a candidate without any bang at all. His race is pretty much done. Unless he comes in at least third on Tuesday in New Hampshire, he’s done. I think it’s more likely that he’ll be fifth or sixth.

“You’re one of the few Fred Followers that I’ve seen admit that Fred is basically moderately conservative. I like that level of honesty.”

Thanks. Some posters have condemned me for even thinking there is such a thing as a “moderate conservative.” It’s all or nothing with this crowd.

sitetest

Mr. Thompson will suffer similarly in New Hampshire for a similar reason. Yet, I’ll bet you that Mr. Thompson receives more than a half-percent of the vote in New Hampshire (Mr. Hunter’s total in Iowa), and I’ll bet you that in New Hampshire, Mr. Hunter won’t come anywhere near Mr. Thompson’s Iowa total of 13%.
***Betting is what Intrade is for. Thompson has more resources due to his enviable name recognition that he built up as a Hollywood actor. When you say Thompson is “conservative enough”, there will always be a contingent that does not think so. I’ll vote for him if he wins the nomination, but in the meantime I’ll support the most conservative man in the race.

I’d be shocked if Mr. Thompson doesn’t get 10 or 20 times the percentage of votes in New Hampshire that Mr. Hunter got in Iowa, and I doubt that Mr. Hunter will get more than half the percentage in New Hampshire that Mr. Thompson received in Iowa.
***Again, that’s what Intrade is for. Lots of people write like that but the ones who put their money down are the ones who produce Intrade data. And it’s futures market data that has proven to be more reliable than polling data, which is why Rasmussen started using Intrade results on their website.

The Efficacy Of Prediction Markets The Liberty Papers ^ |
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1922961/posts

Rasmussen is the first polling organization to start using and referencing futures market data. In particular, once you look at the data and the interface, you’ll realize that it’s just a frontpiece for Intrade.

“Our prediction market for Iowa turned out to be very accurate,” Rasmussen said.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1948537/posts?page=53#53

Rasmussen started using Intrade results.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1945852/posts

Wyoming wasn’t strongly contested by anyone, so I’m not all that willing to ascribe much meaning to its results, good or bad for any particular candidate.
***People voted. Delegates were selected. That’s supposed to mean more in our society than some biased poll results, but it doesn’t.

This beauty contest:

1) pretty much ended Mr. Tancredo’s candidacy;
***Wrong. Tancredo dropped out several weeks ago.

2) significantly harmed Mr. Romney’s candidacy;
***True, because he put so much money into it and the Huckster beat him even though Romney outspent him 13:1.

3) breathed additional life into Mr. McCain’s candidacy;
***It was gaining steam before Iowa, but what you say is probably true.

4) caused Mr. Huckabee’s chances to soar;
***Chances. Intrade had Huckster in the lead. It’s just everyone else that’s catching up to the data. But yes, you’re probably right on that one.

5) given Mr. Thompson the opportunity to fight another day;
***Thompson said he needed to come in second. He didn’t meet expectations he set up for himself, having campaigned exclusively in Iowa for the last few weeks before the caucus.
Thompson: “I Need to Come in Second”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1946065/posts
Significantly, Thompson’s dropout contract for January rose ~40 points after the Iowa caucus.

6) shown the inherent, crippling, fatal weakness of Mr. Hunter’s candidacy;
***Admittedly, Hunter’s campaign is not strong because he does not have the enviable resources that others do. He’s doing a lot with those resources, similar to how well Huckster did. Thompson has squandered his resources, losing 30 points at Intrade after folks got a good look at him. I know Hunter doesn’t have much of a “chance” but he’s the best man in the race, so I’ll stick with him until he no longer asks for our support.

7) damaged Mrs. Clinton’s candidacy;
***WOO HOO. Best thing about Iowa.

8) made Mr. Obama the Democrat front-runner;
***Again, Intrade had Obama out front in Iowa and gaining elesewhere. But mostly, I agree with you here.

9) made Mr. Edwards’ candidacy viable; and
***Interesting. I don’t think much about dems, but I just don’t see him as viable. Oh well, their problem.

10) ended the candidacy of Messrs. Dodd and Biden.
***Probably right, but they’re dems and I don’t care that much about dems.

Quite powerful for a beauty contest.
***And yet, the one that you ignore, where actual delegates were chosen, had 3 candidates win delegates: Romney, Thompson and Hunter.

I don’t really care what Intrade says about the race - to me it’s meaningless data, especially at this point in the campaign.
***I still am able to extract meaningful data from Intrade, which has proven to be more reliable than straight poll results (which are meaningless compared to actual primary votes). For instance, the dropout contracts are interesting to look at sometimes. Thompson has an 85% chance of dropping out in February. Intrade data is what Rasmussen used as part of its polling approach and they seemed to have the most accurate polling data, so I think this data is worth looking at.

There is a reason why Mr. Hunter is running his campaign on a shoestring - he has been entirely unable to attract campaign contributions in any significant amount. That goes to the heart of his candidacy; it shows the inherent weakness of his candidacy.
***Money. The big money goes to the Rockefeller Republicans. The GOP thinks like bankers — they prefer to lend resources to people who don’t really need it. I understand all of that, but what many republicans don’t understand is the powerful voice behind evangelical pro-life (EVPL) conservatives. It surprises the GOP to see EVPL’s go for a liberal candidate like Huckabee, and most in the GOP can’t see why EVPL’s won’t flock to Hunter, and the dems are scared stiff of EVPLs. Huckabee is just a test for the GOP, to see how EVPLs get treated, and if they get the back of the hand, the whole nomination is likely to go down the tubes.

Let’s face it, there are some candidates who are attracting millions of dollars each quarter. Some are doing better than others, but they’re all able to raise money in amounts that might be called big league. But Mr. Hunter isn’t one of those candidates.
***I know that’s true. All the other candidates have some kind of mainstream media star power, like tootyfruityrudy. But once the GOP nominates our candidate, whoever it is, the MSM will turn on him so fast that the GOP won’t be able to see straight. So we need a candidate who won’t pull leftward in a futile attempt to attract votes that will vaporize. The media will work themselves into a frenzy trying to make him look bad, and it will backfire because most of america is conservative. When the media gets worked up and jumps the shark, it does not even know that it has done so, like when Dan Rather did his thing. But if the GOP candidate is a centrist, it plays right into the media’s hands and they don’t work themselves into such a frenzy. That’s how Bill Sali won Idaho, Prop 187 was passed in liberal California, and even how Reagan won. Hunter is the only candidate who can survive the oncoming media heat; Fred has said that he doesn’t even like the process of running for president. Hunter is the better man and the better candidate.

He didn’t have the resources to campaign in Iowa because he is insufficiently attractive as a candidate to raise the resources that he needed.
***Yet, out of the 7 candidates in the race, only 3 won delegates in Wyoming. Hunter chose to go for real delegates rather than a beauty contest which traditionally has low percentages for predicting the eventual winner.

Mr. Hunter has been running for a year or so, and has raised less money than Mr. Thompson raises in a few weeks or a month at most.
***And look at what the 2 candidates have done with these resources. Hunter is a better candidate. He would make a better president.

Mr. Hunter isn’t a “more-bang-for-the-buck” candidate. He’s a candidate without any bang at all. His race is pretty much done. Unless he comes in at least third on Tuesday in New Hampshire, he’s done. I think it’s more likely that he’ll be fifth or sixth.
***The fact that he’s been excluded from the media debates even though he has a delegate to his name does change the landscape. I have no idea what he needs, moving forward, but it’s the real race now and he needs to pick up some delegates. I don’t know his strategy, but I thought I caught a glimpse of it with his choice of campaigning in Wyoming over Iowa, and the exclusion from the debates took me off guard. We’ll see how it all plays out. I’m not disappointed in my candidate because he’s done what he can with what he’s been given and he still has a chance. I see articles right and left bemoaning the fact that there isn’t a real conservative running in the race, and they overlook Hunter. Once America gets a good look at him, they will want him. Of course, the MSM, the dems, and the big-money corporations who want porous borders are going to do what they can to prevent that.

As for me, I’m still a Reaganite. It’s Ronald Reagan who drew me into the Republican Party, and it’s the Reagan political ethos that keeps me here. I’ll take my salami by slices, if that’s the only way I can get it.
***Then go with the candidate who fits the Reaganite mold the best. On Free Republic we all went through this kind of thing when the conservatives were pushing McClintock and the anything-with-anR-in-front-of-it republicans were gleeful about aRINOld. Where are those RINOs now? Pushing some new RINO candidate. We were right to support the solid conservative then and we’re right to do so now.

Dear Kevmo,

Thanks for your post. It’s reasonable both in tone and substance. You’re a credit to Mr. Hunter that you support him. Sadly, that seems to be the exception these days for Hunter supporters.

“When you say Thompson is ‘conservative enough’, there will always be a contingent that does not think so.”

Absolutely true. Conversely, there are plenty of folks who will say of Mr. Hunter, “too conservative.”

My gut feeling is that Mr. Thompson is sufficiently conservative to appeal to 95% of Republicans. He’ll appeal to most of those who are more conservative than he is, and also to those who are less conservative. I don’t think he’ll have much cross-party appeal, he’s probably a little too conservative for that. But he’ll have some.

Thus, my own belief is that the universe of voters who might potentially be willing to vote for Mr. Thompson in the general election is substantially larger than that of Mr. Hunter.

“Lots of people write like that but the ones who put their money down are the ones who produce Intrade data.”

Well, we’ll see who gets what. Whatever Intrade says, I’m completely comfortable that Mr. Thompson will receive in New Hampshire a multiple of the percentage that Mr. Hunter received in Iowa, and Mr. Hunter will not get more than roughly half in New Hampshire that Mr. Thompson got in Iowa.

If that proves to be the case, then what Intrade says or doesn’t say doesn’t mean squat.

It will show that Mr. Thompson is far and away a much, much more viable candidate, and Mr. Hunter is pretty much toast.

“***People voted. Delegates were selected. That’s supposed to mean more in our society than some biased poll results, but it doesn’t.”

Yes, it means that Mr. Hunter will have at least one delegate at the convention. Out of a couple of thousand.

Drop. Ocean.

That’s why folks are ignoring it. It wasn’t hotly contested, and therefore, has no meaning beyond the simple result that Mr. Hunter will have at least one friend at the convention.

“1) pretty much ended Mr. Tancredo’s candidacy;
***Wrong. Tancredo dropped out several weeks ago.”

“5) given Mr. Thompson the opportunity to fight another day;
***Thompson said he needed to come in second. He didn’t meet expectations he set up for himself, having campaigned exclusively in Iowa for the last few weeks before the caucus.”

From my perspective, he was setting a goal he hoped to achieve, to motivate the troops. Mighta done it, too, if Mr. Romney hadn’t had his campaign leak a lie to Politico that he was dropping out. But you know what they say about love and war.

In any event, he got enough to fight another day.

There are no expectations for him in New Hampshire, but he will absolutely have to place in the top three in South Carolina, in my own view, to have a realistic chance of doing well on Super Tuesday.

And all that does is gain him entry to the last part of the race.

“Thompson: ‘I Need to Come in Second’
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1946065/posts
Significantly, Thompson’s dropout contract for January rose ~40 points after the Iowa caucus.”

Who cares? If he doesn’t drop out in January, what does that mean about Intrade? Guess we’ll have to say it’s trash, then.

"Rasmussen is the first polling organization to start using and referencing futures market data. In particular, once you look at the data and the interface, youÂ’ll realize that itÂ’s just a frontpiece for Intrade.

"'Our prediction market for Iowa turned out to be very accurate,' Rasmussen said."

Rasmussen's futures market had Mrs. Clinton as the odds on favorite for winning the nomination less than two weeks ago, with nearly 70%. Guess that prediction didn't turn out too good so far. Either that, or the one that's there today, showing Mrs. Clinton with less than 30% chance of winning the nomination, will prove not to be all that accurate. If you predict every possible outcome, you'll have to be right some of the time. LOL.

“I know Hunter doesn’t have much of a ‘chance’ but he’s the best man in the race, so I’ll stick with him until he no longer asks for our support.”

Fair enough. For myself, I wouldn’t support him even if Mr. Thompson dropped out at this point. The sort of crowd he’s attracted at FR makes me think there’s something wrong with Mr. Hunter to attract such folks as supporters. Present company excepted.

“9) made Mr. Edwards’ candidacy viable; and
***Interesting. I don’t think much about dems, but I just don’t see him as viable. Oh well, their problem.”

We always tend to think that the future will be an extension of the immediate past. But in political campaigns, there can be discontinuities. Ask Mrs. Clinton about that.

A lot of Dems may wake up one day very soon and say to themselves:

“Wait a minute. We just rejected Hillary in favor of a guy who was:

“- born and raised a Muslim in his youth;
“- didn’t become a Christian until his early 30s;
“- has misrepresented these facts;
“- has been a sitting US Senator for just over one year;
“- has a middle name of ‘Hussein’;
“- hasn’t come up with a solid policy proposal yet;
“- is running against a fellow who served six years as a US Senator, and has already been through a presidential race.

“Why are we voting for this fellow?”

And let’s face it, Mr. Edwards wasn’t that far off from Mr. Obama in Iowa.

“Quite powerful for a beauty contest.
***And yet, the one that you ignore, where actual delegates were chosen, had 3 candidates win delegates: Romney, Thompson and Hunter.”

It doesn’t matter whether I’m ignoring Wyoming or not. The COUNTRY is ignoring Wyoming. Thus, it isn’t having any appreciable impact on the point of view of the vast majority of voters. Because probably not more than one in five voters could even tell you the results.

You know the old philosophical question about trees falling in forests. Of course the tree falling makes a sound, even if no one is there to hear it. But if no one hears it, no matter how loud it was, no one will pay attention to it.

“***Money. The big money goes to the Rockefeller Republicans. The GOP thinks like bankers — they prefer to lend resources to people who don’t really need it. I understand all of that, but what many republicans don’t understand is the powerful voice behind evangelical pro-life (EVPL) conservatives. It surprises the GOP to see EVPL’s go for a liberal candidate like Huckabee, and most in the GOP can’t see why EVPL’s won’t flock to Hunter, and the dems are scared stiff of EVPLs. Huckabee is just a test for the GOP, to see how EVPLs get treated, and if they get the back of the hand, the whole nomination is likely to go down the tubes.”

Oh, I don’t know. I think Mr. Hunter’s problem is that he just doesn’t have sufficient appeal to lots of rank-and-file folks. He certainly didn’t motivate ME to send him any money, and I initially backed him before Mr. Thompson started talking about getting in the race.

I’ll tell you what the problem is for me.

I worked up on Capitol Hill for 13 years (and in the White House in the first years of Mr. Clinton’s administration, as well as for Mr. Gore’s offices while he was Vice President); my business had a contract to perform certain technical services there. In those years, I saw and met a number of US Representatives and Senators. I met Bob Dole, Alan Simpson, Patrick Leahy among others. I saw Newt Gingrich walking around the Capitol complex from time to time (always with bags of papers and documents, looking like he’d drop them all at any moment - even as Speaker of the House he looked like a rumpled old college history professor).

I also saw, met, worked with lots of government bureaucrats, typically from about GS-11s up to SESers (SES = Senior Executive Service - these are the bureaucrats who effectively manage the goverment on a day-to-day basis). Sometimes, I’d also work directly with political appointees.

Some of these folks were great to work with, some weren’t that great to work with, some were horrible.

When I first saw and heard Mr. Hunter, I immediately thought to myself, “good, competent mid-level SESer.”

I didn’t remember ever seeing him on the Hill. And when I saw and heard him speak, I didn’t think - “congresscritter” or “Senator” or “cabinet secretary” or even “undersecretary” or “deputy secretary,” but rather “SESer.”

I can’t tell you exactly why that is, but that’s how he strikes me. He seems like a good, competent, intelligent, likeable, high-level bureaucrat.

I know a lot of guys (and a few women, too) like that. I live in the Washington, DC area, and have since I was six years old. I’ve known folks like this nearly all my life. My father worked for the government (although he wasn’t a super-grade - the equivalent of SESers back then), and I knew then, and still know lots of folks like this. I have friends and neighbors who are mid-level to high-level government managers. I go to church with folks like this. They are insinuated into every part of my life.

It’s sort of unavoidable, having lived here since I was a child.

I like most of these folks. They’re my friends, my neighbors, my buddies. I feel warmly toward them. And I feel warmly toward Mr. Hunter.

But I wouldn’t vote for any of these people that I know for president. And I’d like to avoid thusly having to vote for Mr. Hunter, too.

He’s a manager, not a leader.

I think that most Republicans instinctively have the same feeling, even if not enunciated.

“***Yet, out of the 7 candidates in the race, only 3 won delegates in Wyoming.”

How many made any effort to speak of?

“I don’t know his strategy, but I thought I caught a glimpse of it with his choice of campaigning in Wyoming over Iowa,...”

I’m not sure that’s much of a strategy. Pick off 1/12 of the delegates in the smallest states, and let the larger states go essentially unchallenged. Ouch.

“***Then go with the candidate who fits the Reaganite mold the best.”

I am. He may not fill it out all that well, but Mr. Thompson, in my view, is closer to Ronald Reagan, when all is said and done, than any other candidate.

“On Free Republic we all went through this kind of thing when the conservatives were pushing McClintock and the anything-with-anR-in-front-of-it republicans were gleeful about aRINOld.”

I think that comparing Mr. Thompson to Mr. Schwarzenegger is ridiculous. Mr. Thompson is a moderate conservative. Mr. Schwarzenegger is no kind of conservative, and I don’t think many folks ever thought he was. He is, and always has been, a liberal like Mr. Giuliani.

sitetest

I don’t much care about Intrade or other similar set-ups for two reasons: 1. They only give us the wisdom of the market for today. The market is efficient, but that’s only in the long-term; 2. The folks who participate in Intrade are self-selecting, and thus, represent only a certain sort of folks.
***I like Intrade for 2 reasons. 1) it’s more reliable than poll result. Since futures markets are more reliable than polls, I like to proceed from them. and 2) it’s a chance to make money by putting your money where your mouth is for your candidate. Most folks around here rely upon polls to make their point. The TV networks relied upon polls rather than actual votes. Something’s wrong with this picture.

Conversely, there are plenty of folks who will say of Mr. Hunter, “too conservative.” My gut feeling is that Mr. Thompson is sufficiently conservative to appeal to 95% of Republicans. He’ll appeal to most of those who are more conservative than he is, and also to those who are less conservative. I don’t think he’ll have much cross-party appeal, he’s probably a little too conservative for that. But he’ll have some.
***Here’s where we differ. Look at the results of proposition 187 in California, and Bill Sali’s run in Idaho. Both were loudly proclaimed to be “too conservative” and doomed, right up to the election day. But in liberal california there were lots of crossover votes, just like for Reagan, because they could see that the media had jumped the shark. That won’t happen with a centrist candidate. There are 3 big issues that will cause democrats to cross over for Hunter: Immigration, jobs, and security. We live in a dangerous place, and that’s why tootyfruityrudy is so popular. Hunter beats tooty’s credentials on security and WOT by a mile, and yet that’s supposedly the big draw for Rudy. On immigration, Hunter is the gold standard stalwart and everyone knows it, and it is the biggest issue that democrats will jump the aisle for. Hunter’s criticism of Thompson over this issue is well aimed. We need someone in the white house who isn’t a johnny-come-lately on this issue.
Road to Des Moines Conversions on Immigration (Hunter Press release)
News Which Cannot Lose ^ | 10/25/07 | Duncan Hunter/staff
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1916889/posts
Finally, on jobs, Hunter stands apart from his party and from the pack, pointing out such things as MFN status for China and other nations who intend us harm is not a good policy, and with plans to keep high paying jobs here in the US. That message appeals strongly to democrats.
.

On the other hand, Mr. Hunter will likely appeal to more Republicans on the conservative side than Mr. Thompson. But political beliefs, like IQ, exist in a distribution described by a bell curve. Once you get past a certain point on one side or the other, you don’t gain much.
***In some ways I agree. How did those Iowa results strike you? Was Huckster a surprise to you? He wasn’t to me, because of Intrade and also because I thought there was some pro-life evangelical support looking to land. We need a pro-life evangelical who has crossover support, and the most conservative choice is Duncan Hunter. When it comes to evangelical, even Hillary Clinton tried to pretend she was one of them. It failed. Thompson isn’t an evangelical either. Look at how his followers treat evangelicals. The evie crowd will not be happy in Thompson’s camp. They will be happy in Hunter’s camp.

I suspect that Mr. Hunter will actually lose more votes on the left side of the Republican Party than he’ll gain on the right side. And I think that it will be rarer than hen’s teeth to find Democrats who will vote for him.
***We need real data on this. Dems jumped over by the boatload for Reagan, a pro-life evangelical conservative. During this election, it appears that the evangelical side of things is more liberal, but their biggest concern is Pro-Life (Like HLA support) and jobs and maybe after that, security.

Thus, my own belief is that the universe of voters who might potentially be willing to vote for Mr. Thompson in the general election is substantially larger than that of Mr. Hunter.
***In marketing terms, you’re saying the TAM (Total Available Market) for Thompson is bigger than the TAM for Hunter. But it’s your own belief, my belief is based upon the 1980 and 1980 electoral results, which showed a huge TAM for conservative evangelical pro-life, and the 1996 election which showed a tiny TAM for a centrist republican.

Whatever Intrade says, I’m completely comfortable that Mr. Thompson will receive in New Hampshire a multiple of the percentage that Mr. Hunter received in Iowa, and Mr. Hunter will not get more than roughly half in New Hampshire that Mr. Thompson got in Iowa.
***Before Hunter was shut out of the debates, I would have been willing to go out on a limb. But things have changed, so like you say, we’ll see. Hunter did pretty well in a state where he chose to campaign. Thompson showed disrespect for New Hampshire when he chose to announce on Jay Leno rather than go to the first debate there. It could cost him.

It will show that Mr. Thompson is far and away a much, much more viable candidate, and Mr. Hunter is pretty much toast.
***Well, he just told the press that he’s still in the race and I’m still supporting him, so we’ll just see if how the chips fall.

Kevmo: People voted. Delegates were selected. That’s supposed to mean more in our society than some biased poll results, but it doesn’t.”

Sitetest: Yes, it means that Mr. Hunter will have at least one delegate at the convention. Out of a couple of thousand. Drop. Ocean. That’s why folks are ignoring it. It wasn’t hotly contested, and therefore, has no meaning beyond the simple result that Mr. Hunter will have at least one friend at the convention.
***I guess electoral votes, which are set up by our constitution, don’t mean as much as poll results, which are set up by corporations with agendas. But apparently it’s okay because it doesn’t affect your candidate. There was a time on Free Republic when, what you wrote right here would have showed you to be unconservative. Times have changed. People wonder how fascism gains a foothold. It’s things exactly like this.

Mr. Tancredo was running hard in Iowa. He got no traction. He read the writing on the wall. He got out in time to likely get someone (who will remain unnamed) to pick up some of his campaign debts. Although there are larger issues that doomed his campaign, his failing struggle in Iowa was the proximate cause of his campaign’s demise.
***Good enough. Note that Tancredo was pushing hard in Iowa and Hunter wasn’t. Hunter’s still in the race and Tancredo endorsed the guy who seems to have lost the most in that race. This strategy has “given Mr. (Hunter) the opportunity to fight another day” to put it the way you do in point #5.

From my perspective, he was setting a goal he hoped to achieve, to motivate the troops.
***Then why did he say he needed to come in second? He didn’t come in second.

Mighta done it, too, if Mr. Romney hadn’t had his campaign leak a lie to Politico that he was dropping out. But you know what they say about love and war. In any event, he got enough to fight another day.
***I agree, he did. Was that what you thought his campaign was going to be like, a crawl through the trenches? At this point in time he was supposed to be kicking tootyfruityrudy to the curb, but instead he is fighting for 3rd place. We Hunter supporters knew he was a bit of a long shot, and things went quiet when Thompson entered the race with his enviable name recognition. But looking at what Thompson has done with his name recognition and poll position, I see a lousy candidate. He reminds me of the Fred Thompson who had a chance to damage the Clintons on Chinagate and didn’t press forward.

Thompson: ‘Not particularly interested in running’
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1946015/posts

There are no expectations for him in New Hampshire, but he will absolutely have to place in the top three in South Carolina, in my own view, to have a realistic chance of doing well on Super Tuesday.
***So if he doesn’t, if he gets 4th, then will you acknowledge that he isn’t a good campaigner? What is the threshold for meeting that acknowledgement?

Who cares? If he doesn’t drop out in January, what does that mean about Intrade? Guess we’ll have to say it’s trash, then.
***The point about prediction markets is that their overall data is more reliable than polls. Does that mean you won’t listen to any more polls because one or 2 of them were wrong about Huckabee? The data is useful because it gives a snapshot before & after an event. If you take a picture of a piece of property one day, then take the same picture 2 days later, what is significant? The CHANGES are what are significant.

Rasmussen’s futures market had Mrs. Clinton as the odds on favorite for winning the nomination less than two weeks ago, with nearly 70%. Guess that prediction didn’t turn out too good so far. Either that, or the one that’s there today, showing Mrs. Clinton with less than 30% chance of winning the nomination, will prove not to be all that accurate. If you predict every possible outcome, you’ll have to be right some of the time. LOL.
***Again, you’re not seeing that the significance is the change in the data.

It doesn’t matter whether I’m ignoring Wyoming or not. The COUNTRY is ignoring Wyoming.
***OK, then why are you taking your cue from what others think? The country is going to hell in a handbasket, are you going to follow it?

Thus, it isn’t having any appreciable impact on the point of view of the vast majority of voters. Because probably not more than one in five voters could even tell you the results.
***Basically, the end of the republic. Dazzled by bread & circuses.

I’ll tell you what the problem is for me. I worked up on Capitol Hill for 13 years (and in the White House in the first years of Mr. Clinton’s administration, as well as for Mr. Gore’s offices while he was Vice President);
***Sorry to hear about that... —snipping some storytelling—

I can’t tell you exactly why that is, but that’s how he strikes me. He seems like a good, competent, intelligent, likeable, high-level bureaucrat. — more snipping —
And I feel warmly toward Mr. Hunter.
***I hear that a lot.

But I wouldn’t vote for any of these people that I know for president. And I’d like to avoid thusly having to vote for Mr. Hunter, too. He’s a manager, not a leader.
***You sound like a Navy guy. And I disagree vehemently with your assessment. I heard Bob Dole was a leader, not a manager, and that he was nicknamed “Babe” after the pig who wanted to be a sheepdog. That got us nothing. And I also heard Reagan ran his whole presidency by pulling out 3x5 reference cards. These are all interesting stories, but they don’t sway me.

I think that most Republicans instinctively have the same feeling, even if not enunciated.
***That’s because the republican party has changed. This is a conservative website with no affiliation with the GOP. Did you know that? We’re inundated with tons of people who call themselves conservatives (even tootyfruityrudy supporters) but they aren’t. I really don’t care what “most Republicans” instinctively feel, because most republicans are not all that conservative.

I’m not sure that’s much of a strategy. Pick off 1/12 of the delegates in the smallest states, and let the larger states go essentially unchallenged. Ouch.
***If those aren’t real delegates, then it’s a good strategy.

Kevmo: Then go with the candidate who fits the Reaganite mold the best.”

SiteTest: I am. He may not fill it out all that well, but Mr. Thompson, in my view, is closer to Ronald Reagan, when all is said and done, than any other candidate.
***Then why do you acknowledge that he is a moderate conservative, basically “conservative enough”? Thompson does not fill out the Reagan mold, Hunter does. But one thing that Reagan harnessed was that the american people were angry with how they’d been treated internationally with the Iran crisis, and how Carter had messed up the economy. Most republicans at the time considered Reagan’s economics to be “voodoo economics” — sound familiar? But Reagan tapped into the discontent, making him electable. Hunter can tap into the discontent over immigration, WOT, and FleeceTrade. But if that discontent doesn’t really exist, we’ll end up with a Rockefeller Republican.

I think that comparing Mr. Thompson to Mr. Schwarzenegger is ridiculous. Mr. Thompson is a moderate conservative. Mr. Schwarzenegger is no kind of conservative,
***Except that he was being called a moderate conservative at the time, but he has veered left. If Thompson drops out and endorses McCain, would that give you pause about his conservatism? At the time we couldn’t get it across to starry-eyed freepers that aRINOld was no conservative, but now it seems perfectly clear. If you go on over to the Intrade Forum and see why they think Thompson is tanking, you’ll see stuff that is not allowed on Free Republic and you might find yourself withdrawing that characterization of ridiculous.

and I don’t think many folks ever thought he was.
***Yet, go on back to those threads and you’ll see.

He is, and always has been, a liberal like Mr. Giuliani.
***Bookmark for later reference. It may be the only way we learn.

Dear Kevmo,

“***I like Intrade for 2 reasons. 1) it’s more reliable than poll result...”

When Intrade is trying to project a future event such as a candidate dropping out, it has no more reliability than drawing straws.

Polls aren’t predictors of events, they’re snapshots in time of popular opinion.

On the other hand, Intrade, and Rasmussen’s trading thingy are trying to be inherently predictors of future events. That’s what it means when Rasmussen posts “Rasmussen Markets Show 29.0% Chance of Clinton as Democratic Nominee.”

And in that just a short while ago, that percentage was in the upper-60+% range, that means one of those PREDICTIONS is wrong.

“***Here’s where we differ. Look at the results of proposition 187 in California, and Bill Sali’s run in Idaho...”

“***In marketing terms, you’re saying the TAM (Total Available Market) for Thompson is bigger than the TAM for Hunter. But it’s your own belief, my belief is based upon the 1980 and 1980 electoral results, which showed a huge TAM for conservative evangelical pro-life, and the 1996 election which showed a tiny TAM for a centrist republican.”

I understand what you’re saying, and actually, I agree with you. It’s just that I don’t view Mr. Thompson as a centrist. I view him as a moderate CONSERVATIVE, not a moderate. Mr. Bush is a right-leaning moderate, a centrist just to the right of center. Mr. Thompson is a conservative, albeit not a far-right conservative.

“***We need real data on this. Dems jumped over by the boatload for Reagan, a pro-life evangelical conservative.”

The difference between 1980 and today is that there were many conservatives who were still Democrats. Many pro-lifers, too. Like me. Thus, there were plenty of us to get to cross over.

But, most of us have crossed over by this point. 1978 was my first election and 1980 was my first presidential election. Although I registered as a Democrat when I turned 18 in 1978, and remained a registered Democrat until 1990, I musta been a pretty conservative one, as I’ve never voted for a Democrat in my life, except once when the Republican nominee was a member of the Nation of Islam (I’m not making this up).

But there aren’t too many conservative Democrats left anymore.

In any event, I kinda doubt that Mr. Hunter will pull too many cross-overs in part because HE’S NOT PULLING IN MANY ACTUAL REGISTERED REPUBLICANS.

“***In some ways I agree. How did those Iowa results strike you? Was Huckster a surprise to you?”

Surprise? No. In the closing weeks and days of the Iowa campaign it was pretty clear that Mr. Huckabee would win comfortably. Disappointment? Certainly.

The question that will be answered later this month about Mr. Huckabee isn’t how well he’ll do in New Hampshire or South Carolina, but how well he’s been able to turn his Iowa campaign and result into campaign cash. Huckabee + $10 million on Dec. 31 looks like nearly even odds to take the nomination. Huckabee + $1 million on Dec. 31 looks a lot iffier.

Same for Mr. Thompson. Given a mid-seven figure, or low-eight figure cash-on-hand, he’s not even odds, but he has a fighting chance for the nomination. Given low seven figures, and he’s pretty much out of the running.

And, of course, the same applies to Mr. Hunter. Except even worse. Especially now that he’s out of the debates, and in light of the fact that he’s going to do poorly in New Hampshire, a lack of funds at this point will likely prove to be the coup de grace.

“Hunter did pretty well in a state where he chose to campaign.”

Only relatively speaking, Kevmo! If he got one out of 12 delegates in Wyoming, then that suggests he got EIGHT PERCENT of the vote! Is that what Hunter folks are crowing about?? EIGHT PERCENT when he was trying hard?

Then why isn’t Mr. Thompson’s THIRTEEN PERCENT where he tried hard an absolutely stellar result?

Face it, Mr. Hunter stinks as a candidate. Mr. Thompson may not be the gold standard, but he got THIRTEEN PERCENT in a contest that was heavily competed, in a state that is not a natural spot for him, and Mr. Hunter got EIGHT PERCENT in a contest that most folks ignored, in a state that is well-suited for him.

“***I guess electoral votes, which are set up by our constitution, don’t mean as much as poll results, which are set up by corporations with agendas.”

Convention delegates aren’t the same as Electoral votes. Convention delegates choose party nominees. They aren’t mentioned in the Constitution. What’s mentioned in the Constitution are the Electors of the Electoral College.

Electoral votes decide with finality who will be president. The Electors to the College are all chosen on one day, and that result is final.

On the other hand, we’re still a long way off from the day that the Electors are chosen. At this point in the contest, significant gains in public perception are more important than winning a single convention delegate. I’m sure that Mr. Thompson wouldn’t trade his 13% in Iowa for Mr. Hunter’s single convention delegate from Wyoming, but I’d bet that Mr. Hunter would have glad foregone his lonely Wyoming delegate in exchange for Mr. Thompson’s Iowa result.

For one thing, then it would likely have been MR. THOMPSON being excluded from the debates, not Mr. Hunter.

Without money, and without the free air-time one receives from debates, it’s tough to see Mr. Hunter’s path to the nomination.

“There was a time on Free Republic when, what you wrote right here would have showed you to be unconservative.”

Recognizing reality, that more Americans are swayed by the results of the Iowa beauty contest than by the Wyoming caucus, isn’t unconservative. It’s just clear-eyed and unsentimental.

“***Then why did he say he needed to come in second? He didn’t come in second.”

To encourage his troops to work harder. I know that sometimes I set goals for my own employees that I think are probably not going to get met, but if they get near to them, I’m happy.

I’m not sure it was a good idea to say what he said, but I don’t interpret it at all as meaning that he needed to come in second to remain hopeful for the nomination.

“***Again, you’re not seeing that the significance is the change in the data.”

I’m seeing that these “markets” aren’t actually very good PREDICTORS of events, but rather are the amalgamated conventional wisdom of their markets.

“***I agree, he did. Was that what you thought his campaign was going to be like, a crawl through the trenches? At this point in time he was supposed to be kicking tootyfruityrudy to the curb, but instead he is fighting for 3rd place.”

I hoped he’d have done better, but not terribly surprised he isn’t. Presidential politics ain’t beanbag.

I’m certainly less surprised at the current state of the race than, say, many Giuliani supporters, who’d told me in the spring that Mr. Giuliani was the candidate of inevitability, and that if I didn’t hop on the bus, along with all the other social conservatives, then they’d leave me and all the other social conservatives out in the outer darkness to wail and gnash our teeth. And I told ‘em, well, if that’s the case, then so be it.

I’m certainly less surprised than all the Romney backers, who also told me that Mr. Romney is the candidate of inevitability, a prediction that looks markedly foolish to me after he spent untold millions in Iowa and got his butt thoroughly kicked by a guy who was almost dead-broke at the end of the third quarter.

And I’m also less surprised than many Hunter backers, who had been telling me that once the actual voters got to the polls, Mr. Hunter would do well.

He hasn’t.

“We Hunter supporters knew he was a bit of a long shot, and things went quiet when Thompson entered the race with his enviable name recognition. But looking at what Thompson has done with his name recognition and poll position, I see a lousy candidate. He reminds me of the Fred Thompson who had a chance to damage the Clintons on Chinagate and didn’t press forward.”

Mr. Thompson may not be as good a candidate as we would like. He is, however, easily surpassed in the category of lousy candidates by Mr. Hunter.

“***OK, then why are you taking your cue from what others think? The country is going to hell in a handbasket, are you going to follow it?”

In what way am I following? I’m observing and judging. I observe that the country ignored the Wyoming caucus. I judge that that is very bad for Mr. Hunter’s actual candidacy. Whether I think that’s good, bad, fair, unfair, or whatever, isn’t relevant. The only point is that it’s true. Mr. Hunter may have won something on the order of 8% of the vote (hardly a result about which to brag, anyway), but hardly anyone in the United States knows about it. Even if he’d one THIRTEEN percent of the vote, it wouldn’t have mattered. It didn’t keep him in the debates, it won’t get him third place in New Hampshire, it won’t raise $5 million for him.

Practically, its only meaning is that he’ll have at least one friend at the convention.

“***You sound like a Navy guy.”

Not sure what you mean by that. I’ll take it as a compliment, although I was never in military service.

“And I disagree vehemently with your assessment. I heard Bob Dole was a leader, not a manager, and that he was nicknamed ‘Babe’ after the pig who wanted to be a sheepdog.”

Actually, Mr. Hunter sorta reminds me of Mr. Dole. He’s another gentleman to whom I feel very warmly. Having met him, I always liked him. But I never thought he was exactly a leader. In fact, he always struck me, when he was Majority Leader, as precisely a manager, rather than a leader. He was the guy who developed the consensus of the caucus, and then figured out the methodology by which to use the structures and rules of the Senate to get it done.

That’s management, not leadership.

“That got us nothing. And I also heard Reagan ran his whole presidency by pulling out 3x5 reference cards.”

Mr. Reagan set the agenda and the grand strategy. Others, folks similar to Mr. Dole and Mr. Hunter, figured out the tactics to get it done.

Mr. Thompson, in this way, has been the most Reagan-like. He’s the only one who’s been willing to lay out real specifics, especially in areas, like entitlements, that most politicians run from.

“These are all interesting stories, but they don’t sway me.”

I wasn’t trying to sway you so much as trying to identify the source of folks’ unwillingness to follow Mr. Hunter.

“***That’s because the republican party has changed. This is a conservative website with no affiliation with the GOP. Did you know that?”

Sure. But the point is, we’re mostly working within a party, and for candidates running for the nomination of a party. The REPUBLICAN Party.

“We’re inundated with tons of people who call themselves conservatives (even tootyfruityrudy supporters) but they aren’t. I really don’t care what ‘most Republicans’ instinctively feel, because most republicans are not all that conservative.”

Well, I care, because the nominee will be chosen by Republicans, not just conservatives, however defined. And I’d like the nominee be someone for whom I can vote.

“I’m not sure that’s much of a strategy. Pick off 1/12 of the delegates in the smallest states, and let the larger states go essentially unchallenged. Ouch.
***If those aren’t real delegates, then it’s a good strategy.”

Winning 13% in the nationally-hyped beauty contest in Iowa would have eventurally yielded a lot more delegates in a lot of other states than winning 8% of the delegates in Wyoming.

What’s the next Hunter target, Delaware? Rhode Island? ;-)

How’s Mr. Hunter currently polling in his home state? Has he broken 5%?

“***Then why do you acknowledge that he is a moderate conservative, basically ‘conservative enough’? Thompson does not fill out the Reagan mold, Hunter does.”

I don’t see that Mr. Hunter fits the Reagan mold at all. He isn’t a leader. He doesn’t have the charisma, the communications skill, the easy affability of Mr. Reagan. Mr. Reagan was successful in part because he was a brilliant politician. I won’t say that Mr. Thompson is a brilliant politician, nor a great communicator of the first order, nor the most charismatic man in politics today. But he is a far better politician, far better communicator, and far more charismatic than Mr. Hunter. As well, he has much of the easy affability, comfort with oneself, in one’s own skin, of Mr. Reagan.

Mr. Hunter doesn’t.

“But Reagan tapped into the discontent, making him electable. Hunter can tap into the discontent over immigration, WOT, and FleeceTrade.”

I don’t think that Mr. Hunter could tap into a beer keg. With help.

He’s a nice enough guy, a good and decent man, a good conservative, but an entire bust as a presidential contender.

“***Except that he was being called a moderate conservative at the time, but he has veered left.”

I remember he was touted as a moderate, and as better than the Gray Davis or Bustamante alternative.

“If Thompson drops out and endorses McCain, would that give you pause about his conservatism?”

No, it wouldn’t.

I don’t care for Mr. McCain, but he has compiled a record of a moderate conservative, albeit more centrist in recent years. I wouldn’t vote for him in the Maryland primary, even if Mr. Thompson had endorsed him, but I would vote for him in the general election, should he be the nominee.

“At the time we couldn’t get it across to starry-eyed freepers that aRINOld was no conservative, but now it seems perfectly clear. If you go on over to the Intrade Forum and see why they think Thompson is tanking, you’ll see stuff that is not allowed on Free Republic and you might find yourself withdrawing that characterization of ridiculous.”

I don’t think so. Mr. Thompson isn’t Mr. Schwarzenegger. The comparison is not only ridiculous, but offensive.

sitetest

And I’m also less surprised than many Hunter backers, who had been telling me that once the actual voters got to the polls, Mr. Hunter would do well. He hasn’t.
***He has, where he campaigned. We’ll just let the chips fall where they may.

Mr. Thompson may not be as good a candidate as we would like. He is, however, easily surpassed in the category of lousy candidates by Mr. Hunter.
***I’m disappointed in you because I gave plenty of factual support for my view and all you offered was, just your view.

Whether I think that’s good, bad, fair, unfair, or whatever, isn’t relevant. The only point is that it’s true.
***OK, I understand where you’re coming from. But when both of us were in the socon trenches shooting at tootyfruityrudybots, is this where you wanted to be, defending an undemocratic process that favors your candidate who happened to originally sponsor the legislation (CFR)that spawned this outrage?

Mr. Hunter may have won something on the order of 8% of the vote (hardly a result about which to brag, anyway), but hardly anyone in the United States knows about it. Even if he’d one THIRTEEN percent of the vote, it wouldn’t have mattered. It didn’t keep him in the debates, it won’t get him third place in New Hampshire, it won’t raise $5 million for him.
***This is pretty much the same argument as last paragraph, an extension of it, so I’ll just answer with the same answer: when both of us were in the socon trenches shooting at tootyfruityrudybots, is this where you wanted to be, defending an undemocratic process that favors your candidate who happened to originally sponsor the legislation (CFR)that spawned this outrage?

Practically, its only meaning is that he’ll have at least one friend at the convention.
***Everyone thinks their candidate is the best, and yet only one guy wins. Many have been surprised by various things in this race, like Tanc endorsing Romney, Obama beating Hildebeast in Iowa, Huckabee beating Romney in Iowa, George Bush not running for a third term, etc. At the end of this process, only one of these guys moves forward. The chances are that it won’t be Hunter and it won’t be Thompson. If Thompson fulfills the Intrade contract and drops out, who do you think he’ll support? How will that make you feel if he supports McCain, his friend from the senate? Is that what you were fighting in the trenches for?

“***You sound like a Navy guy.” Not sure what you mean by that. I’ll take it as a compliment, although I was never in military service.
***Basically, the Navy guys I’ve run across like that cliche, “he’s a manager,not a leader”, and they also tend to discuss things in anecdotal terms and will look at a generalist argument (most males who are hair dressers are homosexual, here is the such&such numeric breakdown) and they’ll discuss one anecdotal case of a guy who was very heterosexual hairdresser and in their mind that addresses the argument.

“And I disagree vehemently with your assessment. I heard Bob Dole was a leader, not a manager, and that he was nicknamed ‘Babe’ after the pig who wanted to be a sheepdog.”

Actually, Mr. Hunter sorta reminds me of Mr. Dole....—snip—
***here, you’re going into the anecdotal stuff again, like a navy guy.

Mr. Thompson, in this way, has been the most Reagan-like. He’s the only one who’s been willing to lay out real specifics, especially in areas, like entitlements, that most politicians run from.
***Nope. Hunter has him beat on specifics. At least for the issues that are on my radar.

“These are all interesting stories, but they don’t sway me.”
I wasn’t trying to sway you so much as trying to identify the source of folks’ unwillingness to follow Mr. Hunter.
***You were going into your anecdotal Navy Guy mode. It only really addresses an argument when the other guy is giving you a piece of data in the same format.

I’ll need to separate this post again into another section, for the same previous reason.

Sure. But the point is, we’re mostly working within a party, and for candidates running for the nomination of a party. The REPUBLICAN Party.
***The same Yeah, but... response I usually see.

Well, I care, because the nominee will be chosen by Republicans, not just conservatives, however defined. And I’d like the nominee be someone for whom I can vote.
***That goes to my original point. This is not a GOP website, it is a conservative website. JimRob has a pretty good definition on the front page.

Winning 13% in the nationally-hyped beauty contest in Iowa would have eventurally yielded a lot more delegates in a lot of other states than winning 8% of the delegates in Wyoming.
***We shall see. The landscape changed when the media didn’t let Hunter into the debates, in a state that’s supposed to be an early state where the focus is on inclusiveness. I see that your arguments are trending more republican than conservative.

What’s the next Hunter target, Delaware? Rhode Island? ;-)
***I don’t know Hunter’s strategy.

How’s Mr. Hunter currently polling in his home state? Has he broken 5%?
***I’m here in liberal Cahleeforneya. Remember Proposition 187? Remember how polls don’t mean much to Hunter supporters? How’s that Intrade dropout contract for Thompson in January and in February? Does it give you confidence? The cool thing about the Intrade stuff is, if it really gets under your skin you can actually go ahead and do something about it and if you’re right you would make money, maybe as soon as tomorrow. I can’t do much about polls in liberal Cahleeforneeya, as far as I can tell.

I don’t see that Mr. Hunter fits the Reagan mold at all. He isn’t a leader.
***Circular reasoning. You said before that you don’t think he’s a leader, so now he doesn’t fit the mold because he isn’t a leader in your estimation.

He doesn’t have the charisma, the communications skill, the easy affability of Mr. Reagan.
***Neither does Thompson. Romney and Huckster seem to have that covered.

Mr. Reagan was successful in part because he was a brilliant politician. I won’t say that Mr. Thompson is a brilliant politician, nor a great communicator of the first order, nor the most charismatic man in politics today.
***Then by your own reasoning, Thompson does not fit the Reaganite mold.

But he is a far better politician, far better communicator, and far more charismatic than Mr. Hunter.
***I disagree, and part of that disagreement is in the commitment to the message. Nuancing pro-life with a federalist approach is a copout, no one would do it with baby-killing. So when you proceed from a morally inferior position, your communication of the message becomes inferior. Hunter is a better politician and communicator because he proceeds from a higher moral ground. Charisma isn’t something I can measure very well, it’s usually more to do with looks (women swoon over Romney) and Hunter is fine compared to Thompson in that regard.

As well, he has much of the easy affability, comfort with oneself, in one’s own skin, of Mr. Reagan. Mr. Hunter doesn’t.
***You’re simply way off here. Oh well, it’s not worth arguing over.

I don’t think that Mr. Hunter could tap into a beer keg. With help.
***I see your argumentation is once again trending towards republicanism rather than conservatism.

He’s a nice enough guy, a good and decent man, a good conservative, ***I see this kind of stuff a lot. By the way, it doesn’t jibe with the earlier comfortable-in-his-own skin remark.

but an entire bust as a presidential contender.
***Get back to us when Thompson drops out and endorses McCain. Most Thompson supporters on Free Republic will feel betrayed. The ones who do not feel betrayed are the ones I worry the most about, because they’re republican operatives infiltrating Free Republic, not conservatives. Hunter’s support comes from those dedicated to the same idealogy, and they detect integrity in him. If he endorsed a RINO, we would feel betrayed. I do not detect the same level of commitment in Thompson supporters, they are in it for the political win, the same way aRINOld attracted so many GOP supporters.

I remember he was touted as a moderate, and as better than the Gray Davis or Bustamante alternative.
***And I remember that aRINOld was touted as “conservative enough”. Sound familiar? Is aRINOld “conservative enough” for you now?

What I remember was being told that the fact that he was a pro-abort and such didn’t matter, because, after all, he wouldn’t have anything to do with that stuff anyway, and he’d tap conservatives for his administration, etc., etc. Reminds me of Mr. Giuliani, not Mr. Thompson.
***Me, too. At least Thompson has a pro-life record, so I can vote for him with a clean conscience. But I don’t have to support him. I learned the aRINOld lesson that so many freepers and republicans have not.

“If Thompson drops out and endorses McCain, would that give you pause about his conservatism?”
No, it wouldn’t. I don’t care for Mr. McCain, but he has compiled a record of a moderate conservative, albeit more centrist in recent years. I wouldn’t vote for him in the Maryland primary, even if Mr. Thompson had endorsed him, but I would vote for him in the general election, should he be the nominee.
***Good to know.

I don’t think so. Mr. Thompson isn’t Mr. Schwarzenegger. The comparison is not only ridiculous, but offensive.
***Then I’ll just need to bookmark it and hope I remember where it is later if we find ourselves in the same sort of mess with the presidency this time rather than the california GOP sad state of affairs.

Dear Kevmo,

“***He has, where he campaigned. We’ll just let the chips fall where they may.”

“***I’m disappointed in you because I gave plenty of factual support for my view and all you offered was, just your view.”

No, sorry, considering that Wyoming wasn’t even heavily contested, an EIGHT PERCENT result is pretty lousy.

“***OK, I understand where you’re coming from. But when both of us were in the socon trenches shooting at tootyfruityrudybots, is this where you wanted to be, defending an undemocratic process that favors your candidate who happened to originally sponsor the legislation (CFR)that spawned this outrage?”

Defending an undemocratic process? LOL! I’m not defending ANY process! I think the whole thing is royally screwed up! I think that candidates announcing two years before the election is screwed up! I think having the Iowa caucuses right after Christmas is screwed up! And New Hampshire five days later?? Heck, I don’t even think either Iowa or New Hampshire should be allowed anywhere NEAR the front of the line for their contests!

And let’s not even talk about “campaign finance reform” (which doesn’t seem to me to be the cause of two-year presidential election cycles, by the way).

But however much I’d enjoy complaining about how the system is set up, it is what it is.

And our candidates must exist, run, campaign, and WIN within it.

“***Everyone thinks their candidate is the best, and yet only one guy wins. Many have been surprised by various things in this race, like Tanc endorsing Romney, Obama beating Hildebeast in Iowa, Huckabee beating Romney in Iowa, George Bush not running for a third term, etc. At the end of this process, only one of these guys moves forward. The chances are that it won’t be Hunter and it won’t be Thompson.”

I agree. But at this point, I wouldn’t give any of the candidates as much as even odds. A realistic assessment of Mr. Thompson’s chances may tell us that he’s not as likely to get the nomination as Mr. Romney or Mr. Huckabee, but neither of them are even at 50% in my view. And I think it’s an order of magnitude or two more likely that Mr. Thompson will get the nomination than Mr. Hunter.

“How will that make you feel if he supports McCain, his friend from the senate? Is that what you were fighting in the trenches for?”

If he drops out, I’m not really sure that I care about whom he endorses. It won’t mean that much to me.

If Mr. Thompson drops out, I’M certainly not going to vote for Mr. McCain in the Maryland primary.

But I won’t vote for Mr. Hunter, either. Probably write myself in. The field is brutally unattractive this year, sans Mr. Thompson.

“***Basically, the Navy guys...”

Ah, okay. Gotcha. Not sure how that’s entirely applicable.

“***here, you’re going into the anecdotal stuff again, like a navy guy.”

I’ll take that as a compliment.

“***Nope. Hunter has him beat on specifics. At least for the issues that are on my radar.”

Well, perhaps different issues are important to us.

sitetest

Dear Kevmo,

“Sure. But the point is, we’re mostly working within a party, and for candidates running for the nomination of a party. The REPUBLICAN Party.
***The same Yeah, but... response I usually see.

“Well, I care, because the nominee will be chosen by Republicans, not just conservatives, however defined. And I’d like the nominee be someone for whom I can vote.
***That goes to my original point. This is not a GOP website, it is a conservative website. JimRob has a pretty good definition on the front page.”

I don’t feel like this response exactly answers what I said.

You keep mentioning that this isn’t a GOP website, but that’s irrelevant to whom the REPUBLICAN nominee will be, and that is what we’ve been discussing.

Since the folks who will vote in the REPUBLICAN primaries and caucuses will not be required to vote according to the principles spelled out herein, if we care about our candidate having a chance to win, we will need to care about how REPUBLICANS generally think, not just conservatives, of whatever stripe.

” I see that your arguments are trending more republican than conservative.”

No, my arguments recognize the contours of the process. It would be great if the process were better. It isn’t. We’ll just have to deal with it. Doesn’t matter if we don’t like it. The rules are not going to change, at least not for this election, just because we think that they could be better.

“***I don’t know Hunter’s strategy.”

After yesterday’s press conference, I see no evidence that he has one.

“How’s Mr. Hunter currently polling in his home state? Has he broken 5%?
***I’m here in liberal Cahleeforneya. Remember Proposition 187? Remember how polls don’t mean much to Hunter supporters? How’s that Intrade dropout contract for Thompson in January and in February? Does it give you confidence? The cool thing about the Intrade stuff is, if it really gets under your skin you can actually go ahead and do something about it and if you’re right you would make money, maybe as soon as tomorrow. I can’t do much about polls in liberal Cahleeforneeya, as far as I can tell.”

Do you think that Mr. Hunter will win California? Break 5%?

Precisely what is the road to the nomination for Mr. Hunter if his highwater mark is 8% in Wyoming?

Hope isn’t a strategy.

“I don’t see that Mr. Hunter fits the Reagan mold at all. He isn’t a leader.
***Circular reasoning. You said before that you don’t think he’s a leader, so now he doesn’t fit the mold because he isn’t a leader in your estimation.”

No, that’s not circular reasoning. One of Mr. Reagan’s most important strengths was his leadership abilities. I don’t see those in Mr. Hunter. Why would I think that Mr. Hunter is “closer to the Reagan mold” when what I observe about him strikes me as un-Reagan-like?

“He doesn’t have the charisma, the communications skill, the easy affability of Mr. Reagan.
***Neither does Thompson. Romney and Huckster seem to have that covered.

“Mr. Reagan was successful in part because he was a brilliant politician. I won’t say that Mr. Thompson is a brilliant politician, nor a great communicator of the first order, nor the most charismatic man in politics today.
***Then by your own reasoning, Thompson does not fit the Reaganite mold.

“But he is a far better politician, far better communicator, and far more charismatic than Mr. Hunter.”

I never said that Mr. Thompson fits “the Reagan mold” well, only that he fits it better than Mr. Hunter.

Frankly, I don’t see any real inheritors of Ronald Reagan this time around (nor have I since Mr. Reagan left the office). When I made the comment about being a Reaganite, I wasn’t trying to suggest that one of the candidates reminded me of Ronald Reagan, but rather, like Ronald Reagan, I’ll take my salami in slices, if I can’t get the whole thing all at once.

None of these candidates represent (at least to me) much more than a handful of slices of the salami.

“but an entire bust as a presidential contender.
***Get back to us when Thompson drops out and endorses McCain.”

As you said, only one candidate will win. If it’s not Mr. Thompson, I imagine that he could drop out at some point in the future.

I don’t know whom he will endorse, although I’m not sure that it will be Mr. McCain, if for no other reason than that I’m not really sure that Mr. McCain’s candidacy will outlast Mr. Thompson’s.

“Most Thompson supporters on Free Republic will feel betrayed.”

Well, life is tough.

Endorsements don’t mean a whole bunch to me, except maybe in a reverse kind of way. National Review endorses Mitt Romney? Must be something WRONG with the National Review, not something RIGHT with Mr. Romney. Oh, well, just won’t renew my subscription in the spring.

“The ones who do not feel betrayed are the ones I worry the most about, because they’re republican operatives infiltrating Free Republic, not conservatives.”

LOL!! I’d be insulted if I didn’t think that this was such a stupid remark!

“Hunter’s support comes from those dedicated to the same idealogy, and they detect integrity in him. If he endorsed a RINO, we would feel betrayed. I do not detect the same level of commitment in Thompson supporters, they are in it for the political win, the same way aRINOld attracted so many GOP supporters.”

The problem is that you think everyone is working off the same premises as you are.

I don’t put a lot of value in endorsements. And I don’t view Mr. McCain as a “RINO” so much as I view him as a lunatic. Which is why I would prefer that he not become president. But I’ll take him over any Democrat.

Thompson supporters probably are more concerned about winning than Hunter supporters, in that we’ve selected a candidate with a reasonable chance of getting the nomination, and Hunter supporters have selected a candidate with virtually no chance of getting the nomination.

And probably a lot of the folks who supported Mr. Thompson, say, in August and who no longer support him probably are more concerned with winning than they are about principles.

But Mr. Thompson’s been through a tough time lately, and the fair weather friends have probably mostly left his side. Those of us who are left, most of us understand that there is a good chance our guy isn’t going to win. We stay with him because we think 1) he’d make a good president, a conservative president and 2) he still has a realistic chance of winning.

sitetest

I don’t feel like this response exactly answers what I said.
You keep mentioning that this isn’t a GOP website, but that’s irrelevant to whom the REPUBLICAN nominee will be, and that is what we’ve been discussing.
***That’s my subtle way of saying that you value republicanism over conservatism, whereas this website values conservatism over republicanism. In the past, Freepers would have been all over you once they detected this about you, but Free Republic has changed. It might be time for JimRob to update his blurb on the front page because it seems to have been dampened in the quest to support electable candidates, such as what happened with aRINOld.

Kevmo: ” I see that your arguments are trending more republican than conservative.”
SiteTest: No, my arguments recognize the contours of the process.
***That’s a wonderful, beautiful obfuscation. Much too sophisticated for a Navy Guy.

It would be great if the process were better. It isn’t. We’ll just have to deal with it. Doesn’t matter if we don’t like it. The rules are not going to change, at least not for this election, just because we think that they could be better.
***I do think we could be better. I’m disappointed in Free Republic.

After yesterday’s press conference, I see no evidence that he has one [strategy].
***I detect that his strategy was disrupted when he wasn’t invited to debates in New Hampshire. He crashed a Chris Matthews TV show and said about the same sort of things I would have said in the same situation. So he’s probably in the midst of forming a new strategy. He’s a Ranger, so he won’t give up, and he’ll look to leverage the resources available to him.

Do you think that Mr. Hunter will win California? Break 5%?
***This is basically the same question. Hunter will do in California as well as Prop 187 did.

Precisely what is the road to the nomination for Mr. Hunter if his highwater mark is 8% in Wyoming?
***Why are you asking me his strategy? I already said I don’t know his strategy. I detected some of it, but he doesn’t call me up in the middle of the night to discuss strategy. If his highwater mark IS 8% in Wyoming then there aren’t a lot of strategic moves remaining, I’ll grant you that.

Hope isn’t a strategy.
***I agree. But you might want to read up on Gideon.

No, that’s not circular reasoning. One of Mr. Reagan’s most important strengths was his leadership abilities. I don’t see those in Mr. Hunter.
***I see absolutely NO leadership abilities in Thompson. He had a shot at taking down the Clintons and he wussed out. He dropped out of politics to go to Hollywood. His greatest accomplishment as a senator was to help usher in the CFR travesty, and he’s been distancing himself from it ever since. He has alienated the evangelical faction. I don’t see leadership in Thompson. He likes to play tough characters on TV but in reality he’s a marshmallow; Hunter is the real deal.

Why would I think that Mr. Hunter is “closer to the Reagan mold” when what I observe about him strikes me as un-Reagan-like?
***I see why now. It’s because you’re a centrist and Thompson agrees with your idealogy more. The same thing happened once we finally got down to brass tacks with the rudybots — they basically agreed with Rudy. From there, they started seeing all kinds of leadership qualities and Reagan mold stuff. Maybe this kind of discussion is useless as a result.

I never said that Mr. Thompson fits “the Reagan mold” well, only that he fits it better than Mr. Hunter.
***And, we’ve already covered this. Thompson fails because he’s not committed to the core principles. Federalism for abortion? Who would push for such a thing for baby killing? NO ONE. Thompson’s starting point is at least half a step behind Reagan and he never catches up. Hunter’s starting point is stronger on pro-life than Reagan was.

None of these candidates represent (at least to me) much more than a handful of slices of the salami.
***That’s why you like Thompson. He fits your idealogy closer and then you start seeing leadership qualities after that. Best of luck.

“Most Thompson supporters on Free Republic will feel betrayed [if Thompson endorses McCain].”
Well, life is tough.
***I agree. Thanks for being so honest about where you’re coming from. There’s a possibility that you represent a large contingent of Thompson supporters, but judging from the fact that you’re the first one I’ve run across saying the stuff you do, I kinda doubt it. Here on Free Republic, Thompson is the candidate du jour because he’s conservative enough, and has good name recognition. But once his conservative credentials are debunked by his own actions [such as, if he were to endorse McCain], his support will evaporate on Free Republic. Beyond that, since I’m a conservative, I guess I really don’t pay much attention to what kind of support a candidate has — I can tell he ain’t for me.

Kevmo: “The ones who do not feel betrayed are the ones I worry the most about, because they’re republican operatives infiltrating Free Republic, not conservatives.”
SiteTest: LOL!! I’d be insulted if I didn’t think that this was such a stupid remark!
***Good enough, then. You might want to check in with your fellow freeper Thompson supporters and see who would feel betrayed if he endorsed McCain. Every single one of those that would feel betrayed is a Hunter supporter struggling to break free, just needs a little courage.

Kevmo: I do not detect the same level of commitment in Thompson supporters, they are in it for the political win, the same way aRINOld attracted so many GOP supporters.”
SiteTest: Thompson supporters probably are more concerned about winning than Hunter supporters, in that we’ve selected a candidate....
***So I say they’re in it for the win, and your counterargument is to say they’re in it for the win. Same argument we heard from aRINOld supporters. Did conservatism win? NO.

with a reasonable chance of getting the nomination, and Hunter supporters have selected a candidate with virtually no chance of getting the nomination.
***I would disagree with the chances you cite.

And probably a lot of the folks who supported Mr. Thompson, say, in August and who no longer support him probably are more concerned with winning than they are about principles.
***Very interesting supposition. There may be something there. I’ll have to think about it.

But Mr. Thompson’s been through a tough time lately, and the fair weather friends have probably mostly left his side. Those of us who are left, most of us understand that there is a good chance our guy isn’t going to win.
***You’re kind of all over the map on this. You say “Thompson supporters probably are more concerned about winning than Hunter supporters,” and then you say this. If there isn’t a good chance your guy is going to win, you might as well pick the most conservative candidate in the race.

We stay with him because we think 1) he’d make a good president, a conservative president and 2) he still has a realistic chance of winning.
***OK, so both of us have a conservative candidate, and both of us think he has a realistic chance of winning. Both of us think McCain, Huckabee, and others are going to drop out. My focus on the PLEVs leads me to believe they would settle on Hunter, as a form of identity politics, i.e. the average evangelical says, “I’m a PLEV and so is he, so I’ll vote for him, even though I like Huckabee better.” I agree that McCain’s support would probably land on Thompson. Both sides dislike tootyfruityrudy, so there’s no problem there. What this amounts to is the conservative Prolife Evangelical versus non-evangelical tension. You keep saying things like, “Well, that’s how things are”. And with identity politics, the PLEVs will go with a PLEV candidate — that’s how things are.

As a Catholic who wanted Mr. Thompson to enter the race, I can’t tell you that attracting EVANGELICALS SPECIFICALLY was on my mind.
***It should have been, because that’s the core of the socon movement. Or do you think Huckabee won Iowa because he spent more money than the rest of the pack?

See, that gets back to the whole self-selection thing. The relatively tiny number of people who participate in Intrade are self-selecting, thus skewing the population in ways that we don’t really know. And I’m clearly not someone who would participate in something like Intrade.
***I’m interested in harnessing the data. You think you’re right, but you won’t put money down on that hunch. For the people who do put money down, there is a bunch of data I can mine, and they are more right more often than pollsters and probably more often than you.

Kevmo: “If it is an order of magnitude more likely, how is it that this guy from Arkansas is beating Fred in the polls?”
SiteTest: What’s one thing got to do with the other?
***Your math doesn’t add up. Over at Intrade, when one guy is 10X more likely to win than another guy and someone else is 15X more likely to win than him, they make money by shorting both candidates. That’s what one thing has got to do with the other. And why I pull my data from Intrade, which is a collective wisdom. Your wisdom is pretty good, but it doesn’t measure up to the collective wisdom.

You’re reading things through your own lense, from your own perspective, making little effort to understand the other’s perspective.
***You’re doing exactly the same thing.

It’s not centrism that I value. It’s that I don’t think that he will be competent at being president.
***Here, you say you see leadership qualities in Thompson that would make a good president, but you overlook stunning drawbacks about his character. From my discussion with you it’s clear that it’s because you agree with him. It is centrism you value. The McCain endorsement and other clues point to that, and when Thompson endorses McCainiack, team Hunter will gain a bunch of Thompson Freepers, a great majority of them. You would represent a small minority in freeperland. Your analysis of competency would spit out Bill Clinton as a good president, and that would give your fellow Thompson supporters pause here on free republic, but not on any generic GOP website.

Having all the right views on all the issues (and I don’t actually think that about Mr. Hunter) doesn’t mean one has what it takes to get the job done.
***It’s the most important aspect. It means he won’t compromise and lose his way, like aRINOld. Your dismissiveness of Hunter is based upon idealogy.

Otherwise, it would be quite obvious that I would be the best person to be President of United States, in that my views are the most correct (at least in my view). ;-)
***Yup. I’ve heard that one before. That’s why you would write in yourself.

But an honest self-assessment reveals that I’d be a pretty crappy president, no matter how right are all my views on the issues.
***And an honest assessment of the character of the men in the race today spits out Hunter as the one with the most integrity. Clintoon’s presidency taught us how important integrity is, because no one knows what they’re going to be up against in office.

When I look at Mr. Hunter, I see “manager” not “leader.” I see “Head of FEMA” or maybe “Secretary of Homeland Security.” If that high. I don’t see president.
***Interesting. Most conservatives see Homeland Security of SecDef for Hunter. So far, I really haven’t seen Thompson’s name come up for any of these slots, because he’s not as qualified as Hunter. You just don’t agree with Hunter and so you don’t see him as president. Not much to it, really.

Dear Kevmo,

“***Then post that stuff on a REPUBLICAN website. This is a website for conservatives.”

LOL! So we shouldn’t post about the REPUBLICAN primaries and caucuses on this website, and the strategies and tactics of the candidates running therein?

“***That’s a wonderful, beautiful obfuscation. Much too sophisticated for a Navy Guy.”

Gee, being better than a Navy Guy - it doesn’t get any better than that. Thank you! ;-)

“***I do think we could be better. I’m disappointed in Free Republic.”

So... you think that we can change the dates of primaries and caucuses for 2008 at this point? Change the campaign finance laws as they relate to the 2008 presidential race? Change the attitudes of the lamestream media at this point for the 2008 race?

Do you have a magic wand?

“After yesterday’s press conference, I see no evidence that he has one [strategy].
***I detect that his strategy was disrupted when he wasn’t invited to debates in New Hampshire. He crashed a Chris Matthews TV show and said about the same sort of things I would have said in the same situation. So he’s probably in the midst of forming a new strategy. He’s a Ranger, so he won’t give up, and he’ll look to leverage the resources available to him.”

I didn’t see any strategy BEFORE they kicked him out of the debates.

“Do you think that Mr. Hunter will win California? Break 5%?
***This is basically the same question. Hunter will do in California as well as Prop 187 did.”

I’m sorry, I missed that before. Are you saying that Mr. Hunter will get nearly 60% of the vote in the Republican primary in California on February 5, 2008? Wow. That’s quite a prediction, if I’m not misunderstanding you. I will revisit it on February 6, 2008.

“***I see absolutely NO leadership abilities in Thompson.”

Okay. Here, we differ.

“with a reasonable chance of getting the nomination, and Hunter supporters have selected a candidate with virtually no chance of getting the nomination.
***I would disagree with the chances you cite.”

Well, if I haven’t misinterpreted your comments regarding Mr. Hunter’s results in the upcoming California primary, then I understand why you disagree with me.

“***You’re kind of all over the map on this. You say ‘Thompson supporters probably are more concerned about winning than Hunter supporters,’ and then you say this. If there isn’t a good chance your guy is going to win, you might as well pick the most conservative candidate in the race.”

No, rather, I recognize that the currently crowded field, no one candidate has as much as a 50% chance of being nominated. There are five folks polling in double-digits nationally, but not a single one is polling much over 20%.

My own handicapping of the race is that Mr. Thompson may not have more than one chance in six or seven, but I don’t think that Mr. Hunter has one chance in a hundred. Or two hundred.

As well, I don’t think that any of the other folks have as much as two chances in five.

So, who should I support?

A - A candidate with whom I disagree on many issues and whom I don’t like with maybe 2 chances in 5.

B - A candidate with whom I agree on most issues, whom I like as a candidate, whom I think can lead the country and do the job well, with maybe 1 chance in 7.

C - A candidate with whom I agree on the overwhelming majority of issues, but whom I don’t think would be competent as president, and whose chances are maybe 1 in 200.

“***And, we’ve already covered this. Thompson fails because he’s not committed to the core principles. Federalism for abortion? Who would push for such a thing for baby killing? NO ONE. Thompson’s starting point is at least half a step behind Reagan and he never catches up. Hunter’s starting point is stronger on pro-life than Reagan was.”

You’re seeing things only through your lense. Mr. Thompson’s principles may differ somewhat from yours. A principled federalist is a principled federalist.

As for me, I want the United States to get to where Mr. Hunter is on the issue of life.

But I think that at this time, we’re not going to get much further than where Mr. Thompson is.

I don’t see any groundswell for a sweeping, federal ban, whether by statute or by constitutional amendment, of 100% of all abortions. Which is my ultimate goal. I kinda might be a bit of an extremist on this one, but there you have it.

But as much as that’s what I want, I know that I’m not gonna get it any time soon.

So, I’ll take what I can get for now, and come back for more later. If returning the issue to the states is all we can get for now, well then, let’s hop to it!

“And with identity politics, the PLEVs will go with a PLEV candidate — that’s how things are.”

Maybe. But I don’t see Mr. Hunter getting much past his 8% in Wyoming. In any state. If he breaks into double digits in any state, that will be an excellent outcome for him.

sitetest

Dear Kevmo,

“***It should have been, because that’s the core of the socon movement. Or do you think Huckabee won Iowa because he spent more money than the rest of the pack?”

Well, having marched for life in Washington, DC for some years now, I can tell you that the majority of the marchers every January 22 are Catholic. And the pro-life movement is at the core of the social conservative movement.

I wouldn’t call evangelicals THE core of the social conservative movement, but rather A core.

And since we Catholics actually voted in the majority for Presidents Bush II and Reagan, I didn’t think that evangelicals, our partners in the social conservative movement, would go all tribal on us.

“You think you’re right, but you won’t put money down on that hunch.”

True enough. I also don’t go to Atlantic City or to the races here in Maryland. I have been known to buy a 50-50 ticket at Knights of Columbus meetings.

“***Your math doesn’t add up. Over at Intrade, when one guy is 10X more likely to win than another guy and someone else is 15X...”

Well, I’m pretty sure that I don’t care what Intrade “thinks,” but here’s the deal: I’d say that Mr. Thompson is maybe 30 or 40 times more likely to be the nominee than Mr. Hunter is, and Mr. Huckabee is probably closer to 100 times more likely to be the nominee. Of course, that means that Mr. Huckabee is significantly more likely to be the nominee than Mr. Thompson, but only by a factor of two or three, or thereabouts.

“***You’re doing exactly the same thing.”

I’m expressing my views, but I’m not interpreting YOUR views through my perspective, only disagreeing with them.

“***Here, you say you see leadership qualities in Thompson that would make a good president, but you overlook stunning drawbacks about his character.”

I don’t see any stunning drawbacks in Mr. Thompson’s character.

“From my discussion with you it’s clear that it’s because you agree with him. It is centrism you value.”

From our discussion, it’s clear that you’re now willfully misrepresenting my views, because you’re unable to see things from outside of your own perspective.

On most issues, I think that Mr. Thompson and Mr. Hunter agree. On some issues, Mr. Hunter is more conservative. Abortion is one. I assure you that I’m much closer to Mr. Hunter on the issue of abortion than to Mr. Thompson.

I just don’t see that we’re going to get all the way to that position without first going through a period where abortion becomes again a state issue. Thus, if Mr. Thompson appoints justices that vote to overturn Roe, AND appoints pro-lifers to posts that are sensitive with regard to the issue of life (which he has promised), then I can accept that. That will work. That’s as far as we’re going to get in the next few years.

Unless Intrade is telling you that the likelihood of passing the HLA in the next eight years is above 50%?? LOL.

“Your analysis of competency would spit out Bill Clinton as a good president, and that would give your fellow Thompson supporters pause here on free republic, but not on any generic GOP website.”

I wouldn’t say that Mr. Clinton was a COMPETENT president, but he became a sufficiently PASSIVE president after 1994 that the damage he did to the country was significantly minimized.

“***It’s the most important aspect.”

I’d actually agree with that. That’s why I won’t vote for Mr. Giuliani or Mr. Romney. My 20% friend is my 80% enemy, as someone around here says.

But Mr. Thompson is my 80% friend. Even if Mr. Hunter is my 90% friend, the fact that Mr. Thompson might possibly be president, and Mr. Hunter won’t, is important to me.

“It means he won’t compromise and lose his way, like aRINOld.”

But Mr. Schwarzenegger never ran as much more than our 40% friend. He was pretty dismissive of social conservatives from the get-go.

“Your dismissiveness of Hunter is based upon idealogy.”

Your willingness to tell that untruth is based on your lack of ability to see from the other fellow’s perspective. My ideOlogy is closer to Mr. Hunter’s in some areas than to Mr. Thompson.

“***Interesting. Most conservatives see Homeland Security of SecDef for Hunter. So far, I really haven’t seen Thompson’s name come up for any of these slots, because he’s not as qualified as Hunter.”

Certainly not, since Mr. Thompson has already ruled out taking any other office. As well, Secretary of Homeland Security is more of a manager’s job, not a leader’s, and I don’t think that Mr. Thompson is an excellent manager.

“You just don’t agree with Hunter and so you don’t see him as president.”

There you go again.

Well, if you must persist in misrepresenting what I’ve said, perhaps we should leave it at that.

Nice chatting with you.

sitetest

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.