“***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
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.
***That doesn’t address the contention of whether the folks who are out there are evangelicals or not. They sound like evangelical catholics to me.
I wouldn’t call evangelicals THE core of the social conservative movement, but rather A core.
***I would. But since neither of us is arguing from some statistical evidence (once again, yours is anecdotal), it’s becoming a moot point.
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.
***Good writing, makes a funny mental image. First you say, “we catholics” then you talk about evangelicals going “all tribal on us”. Pot, meet kettle. You’re drawing a distinction between catholics and evangelicals, and I’m not. Who’s the one going tribal here?
Kevmo: “You think you’re right, but you won’t put money down on that hunch.”
SiteTest: 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.
***So one is okay but the other isn’t. And the whole group of political junkies who DO put their money down, and happen to generate reliable data (more reliable than our ballyhooed polls) are dismissed because of your anecdotal approach because you don’t do it. Yup, sounds like a Navy Guy once again.
Kevmo: “***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...”
SiteTest: Well, I’m pretty sure that I don’t care what Intrade “thinks,”
***In short, their math adds up and yours doesn’t. I’ll stick to the more reliable data, thank you.
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.
***See here is where your math doesn’t add up. Earlier you said it was 1 or 2 ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE more likely that Thompson would win the Nom, and now you’re squarely down to 1 order of magnitude. Intrade has Thompson at 2.0, Hunter at 0.1 so it’s 20X at this point. Hunter tends to fluctuate from .1 to .2, so he can knock down that multiplier to 10X in one day. In engineering, when you’re off by an order of magnitude, you got the answer wrong. Huckabee is at 14.5, ~7X more likely than Thompson to get the nomination. Since both of us have noticed that the Huckster followers are evangelicals who have “gone tribal”, And that Huck is probably not going to get the nomination, it looks to me like much more of that support would land in Hunter’s evangelical camp than in Thompson’s Lukewarm Laodicean camp.
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.
***I’ll stick with 7X, which is the accumulated wisdom of the market for now, thank you. They don’t make the mistake of being off by an order of magnitude.
Kevmo“***You’re doing exactly the same thing.”
SiteTest: I’m expressing my views, but I’m not interpreting YOUR views through my perspective, only disagreeing with them.
***Sounds the same to me.
Kevmo: “***Here, you say you see leadership qualities in Thompson that would make a good president, but you overlook stunning drawbacks about his character.”
SiteTest: I don’t see any stunning drawbacks in Mr. Thompson’s character.
***You’re star struck. Just like the aRINOld supporters a while back. Best of luck with your candidate.
Kevmo: “From my discussion with you it’s clear that it’s because you agree with him. It is centrism you value.”
SiteTest: 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.
***Likewise, Prince. We’ll let the readers decide for themselves.
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.
***Good to see you acknowledge that. That one point is likely to draw the bulk of the support of the Huckabee followers, more than any other.
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.
***I do. No one would make babykilling a states right issue. I’m okay with an incrementalist approach, see my proposal. But a federalist approach is wrong in several ways.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1949702/posts?page=588#588
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.
***There’s a way to circumvent the entire Roe V. Wade thing by having the baby declared to be a person, just like we did with Slaves in the 1860’s. That will work if you schedule the vote right before congress runs for their election.
Unless Intrade is telling you that the likelihood of passing the HLA in the next eight years is above 50%?? LOL.
***HLA or RTLA? I have gotten them confused in the past. Hunter supports RTLA, Thompson doesn’t. Score one for Hunter, and a minus in Thompson’s column.
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.
***Most freepers would disagree with you. I disagree with you. I signed up in 1998 when hope for the socons was at its lowest ebb. Thanks for being honest and candid about your positions. I can see from our point-counterpoint that there is no good reason to think that Fred’s candidacy will thrive.
Kevmo:“***It’s the most important aspect.”
SiteTest: 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.
***Significantly, it was me disagreeing with you when I wrote that it was the most important aspect. That bolsters my point that your perspective of Hunter proceeds from your idealogy. I’m pretty sure my perspective is colored in the same way, it’s probably human nature.
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.
***Very interesting. I see that you’re closing out the discussion, so I won’t bother getting into this, but there’s a lot to be talked about on this one sentence.
But Mr. Schwarzenegger never ran as much more than our 40% friend. He was pretty dismissive of social conservatives from the get-go.
***It sounds like you weren’t around at that time. Maybe aRINOld was dismissive, but the rest of his followers, big factions of the GOP, and lots of Freepers managed to get stars in their eyes and convince plenty of socons that he was “conservative enough”.
Kevmo: “Your dismissiveness of Hunter is based upon idealogy.”
SiteTest: 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.
***You don’t know the meaning of an untruth. I established that your perspective is based upon idealogy, and if you say your idealogy is closer to Hunter than Thompson then I can see things from your perspective. Let the readers decide for themselves.
Kevmo: 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.”
SiteTest: Certainly not, since Mr. Thompson has already ruled out taking any other office.
***Then he’s selfish, not a team player. Also, he simply isn’t suitable. If a man isn’t suitable for the lower positions in an organization, there’s a likelihood he’s not suitable for the top position.
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.
***I agree with you here. Thompson isn’t a good manager, Hunter is a good manager. I think Thompson isn’t a good leader, you think Hunter isn’t. So who has more positive ticks on his scorecard? Hunter, who is an acknowledged good manager across the board; Thompson is an acknowledged “non-excellent” manager across the board. Hunter is better than Thompson.
There you go again.
***Likewise, prince.
Well, if you must persist in misrepresenting what I’ve said, perhaps we should leave it at that.
***Likewise, prince. We’ll let the readers decide for themselves.
Nice chatting with you.