“***True enough. But this thing with evangelicals supporting Huckabee has the potential to disrupt all those great strategic plans. He has the capability to pull it off all the way through. When some republicans decided they should draft Fred, I get the impression it wasn’t because they were looking to appease the evangelical prolife faction within the party, and the stunt has backfired.”
As a Catholic who wanted Mr. Thompson to enter the race, I can’t tell you that attracting EVANGELICALS SPECIFICALLY was on my mind. However, I was concerned about attracting social conservatives, since I’m one. I think that minus a Baptist preacher thrown into the mix, I’m not sure that evangelicals would have separated as much from the rest of the social conservative mix.
“***Then you could make some money on Intrade if you honestly think that and it turns out to be correct.”
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.
Just not on my radar, so to speak.
“If it is an order of magnitude more likely, how is it that this guy from Arkansas is beating Fred in the polls?”
What’s one thing got to do with the other? Currently, Mr. Huckabee is besting Mr. Thompson. That doesn’t negate the fact that Mr. Thompson is swamping Mr. Hunter (or that Mr. Huckabee is swamping Mr. Hunter more than Mr. Thompson).
“***You’re the first Thompson supporter who I’ve run across who has said that he wouldn’t vote for Hunter. I guess you really do value centrism — like you said, perhaps different issues are important to us. Thanks for your honesty, it has led to a good discussion.”
You're reading things through your own lense, from your own perspective, making little effort to understand the other's perspective.
It’s not centrism that I value. It’s that I don’t think that he will be competent at being president. 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.
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). ;-)
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.
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.
sitetest
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.