Replies

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.