And in that [Thompson] beat Mr. Hunter’s totals in Iowa by about 25 or 30 to 1, he is certainly far more readily electable than the ultimate loser that you back.
***Hunter didn’t campaign much in Iowa. They don’t really elect their delegates until April, so it’s basically a beauty contest, nonbinding. The first primary was Wyoming, where Romney won 8, Thompson won 3, and Hunter won 1. That would put your totals more like 3:1 for Thompson:Hunter, and that means Hunter really is a viable candidate. It also means that Hunter is more viable than McCain, Giuliani, Huckabee, and RPaul, using your same level of analysis. 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.
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.
“***Hunter didn’t campaign much in Iowa.”
Yes, because he lacked resources to make an all-out effort.
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%.
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.
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.
sitetest