Posted on 11/10/2007 9:58:59 AM PST by Brices Crossroads
In September, I posted another vanity (linked below) in which I observed that the historical trends in this election favored Fred Thompson. Since then, his RCP average has dropped from about 22% to 16-17%. In the more volatile Rasmussen daily tracking poll, he has also dropped to 16%, about a 10 point drop from his post announcement high. In light of the above poll numbers, is it time for me to issue a mea culpa? No. This is not at all inconsistent with the hypothesis of my previous post.
Neither of the successful insurgent candidates in modern times, Reagan or Goldwater, has remained the frontrunner continuously. Reagan actually lost the mantle twice, both times in Iowa, when Gerald Ford upset him narrowly in 1976 and George H.W. Bush did the same in 1980. Goldwater was the underdog until he won the California primary. An insurgent candidacy cannot by definition be waged by a frontrunner. So Fred's poll numbers should not depress any of his supporters. In fact they ought to be a cause for quiet optimism. He remains in second place where he has been for the entire race. The Mainstream Media has bitten is tail trying to destroy him, much as it did Reagan. This has been beneficial in three ways that are not readily apparent. First, among fairminded GOP primary voters who are undecided (and overwhelmingly conservative), the attacks will be perceived as "over the top". Undecided voters in the GOP will not be sure who the elite establishment candidate is (I think it is Giuliani, principally, but an argument can be made that both Romney and McCain are default choices, in the event Giuliani implodes). They will be sure, however, who the establishment candidate is not. It is NOT Fred Thompson. Their contempt for Fred is not only a badge of honor for him, but in my opinion a magnet for votes among disaffected GOP conservatives, of whom there are many on Immigration, government spending and political correctness, among other issues.
Second, the barrage against Fred reflects a not very subtle anti-Southern bias in the elite. They despise the south in general and Fred's signature principle, Federalism, in particular. It stands in the way of their plans, which have been underway without interruption since Reagan left office in 1988, to concentrate power in Washington, D.C. This anti southern bias also plays into Thompson's hands, because it contains all the ingredients for a backlash among southern GOP primary voters. This backlash is magnified in importance because the South (having voted Republican so faithfully over the years) is apportioned relatively more delegates than its population would call for. Fred, as the only major southern candidate, would be the natural beneficiary of regional pride. His regional advantage will, in my opinion, be magnified by the not so subtle anti-southern bigotry of the elites.
Finally, the elites, and their MSM allies, are to be thanked for lowering expectations for Fred. They are basically telling GOP primary voters that it is over, he cannot win, etc. When he does better than expected, as I predict he will in every primary/caucus, it will cause a thunderclap in which he will be perceived as the victor, even if he does not place first in them all. Ironically, in lowering expectations, they are not damaging him among those of us who detest the elites and the MSM but they doing yeoman's work for the Thompson campaign. The free publicity Fred is virtually guaranteed to get after "exceeding expectations" could not be purchased with all of Romney's millions.
Just as a postscript, let me say something about insurgent candidates in general and Fred Thompson in particular. Insurgent candidates are uncomfortable and ineffective in the role of the frontrunner. Reagan was never comfortable in the role. Good, principled candidates are at their best on the offensive. Fred Thompson is no different. In his first election in Tennessee, he was at his best when he came from 20 points down to defeat a strong Democrat Congressman and to reclaim Al Gore's seat for the Republicans.
A frontrunner's campaign can be successful, but I do not believe it will be so this year. In any event, Fred Thompson is not the candidate to run such a campaign. His principles and honesty would be major impediments to such a "safe" strategy. However, in the particular circumstances the country and the Party find itself in in 2008, Fred Thompson is in exactly the position he needs to be to claim the GOP nomination. The times have indeed met the man.
Previous post:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1900662/posts
It looks to me like you're not seeing the real Thompson but are projecting onto him all the things you want him to be.
Is Fred really an "insurgent candidate"? He started out late, so he's not an established candidate, but is he really anti-establishment in any deeper way?
Did Fred make any of the populist appeals that you identify him with today, during his earlier career? Did he really show much concern about immigration when he was in the Senate?
Second, the barrage against Fred reflects a not very subtle anti-Southern bias in the elite. They despise the south in general and Fred's signature principle, Federalism, in particular. It stands in the way of their plans, which have been underway without interruption since Reagan left office in 1988, to concentrate power in Washington, D.C. This anti southern bias also plays into Thompson's hands, because it contains all the ingredients for a backlash among southern GOP primary voters. This backlash is magnified in importance because the South (having voted Republican so faithfully over the years) is apportioned relatively more delegates than its population would call for. Fred, as the only major southern candidate, would be the natural beneficiary of regional pride. His regional advantage will, in my opinion, be magnified by the not so subtle anti-southern bigotry of the elites.
Has there really been a "barrage" against Fred? He's the new boy trying to break in between candidates who've been at it for a year. Consequently, he doesn't always come off as well as they do, but what evidence do you have that he gets more criticism than the other candidates?
Was federalism really an important principle for Fred when he was in the Senate? Or is it something he's latched onto recently, to create a niche for himself in the market or to duck national issues?
And is Fred really the kind of regional candidate you make him out to be? What if you're mistaking an accent for a program or a philosophy?
Moreover, can you have it both ways? Can you make Fred a symbol of regional pride and attack others from other regions for being lukewarm or ice cold towards him?
Can you expect him to be your own property and blame others when they don't vote for him? "Vote Southern" is a slogan that won't travel well.
I think it coincidental that his “downturn” coincided with the Schiavo comments. The Schiavo fiasco simply is not frontburner fare to most people watching the campaigns right now. (I’m not saying that it’s not an issue, it’s just not top-of-the-list at this point in time.) That’s JMO.
Congress had NO BUSINESS being involved in the Schaivo case. PERIOD.
I’m getting really tired of people fishing for the most fringe issues to use “against” Mr Thompson. If this is an issue to you, please don’t vote. We’ll end up with Rudy because of you.
I agree, Thompson is the most conservative candidate with a shot at winning the nomination and he stands the best chance at beating Hillary because he is a true conservative unlike RudyMcRomney.
Good grief. You want me to stay home because you don't like my theory on Fred's sinking ratings.
Okay BM, tell you what. I won't vote, and you won't read my posts.
The best way to prevent anything like what happened to Schiavo again is to pass a human life amendment to the constitution. Which my first choice for POTUS Tom Tancredo supports. Unfortunately he doesn’t have enough support to win the nomination so Fred Thompson is the next best thing.
I read this a few seconds after again appreciating your eloquence in post #37 on the Schiavo argument, where you note: But the federal government cannot be the backstop for 10 million state court rulings per year. It would not work and would wind up creating more miscarriages of justice than it would remedy. That is all Fred was saying, and I don’t know how his view can be reasonably disputed.
I don't think I was being overgenerous. I think you state things very civilly and well. Reading that post above, I had already been trying to clarify in my own mind how I'd express why I think Thompson was so RIGHT on the Schiavo thing. Then again, I am also of the opinion that the whole Schiavo case was a conservative take on tawdry personal melodrama and an invasion of all kinds of peoples' privacy that was shameful. Many Republicans such as Hannity made hysterical busy-body spectacles of themselves. I was pretty disgusted that so many conservatives presumed to take it as a cause. All the folks with such strong nattering opinions on what should and shouldn't and did and didn't happen in that case and in those hospital rooms and in the hearts of those family members, strike me as self-righteous old-ladies-in-tennis-shoes of the most obnoxious type.
Thompson impressed me on the Schiavo question on MTP.
Thank you for posting that link...I enjoy listening to almost anything Senator Thompson has to say...it is always a breath of fresh air and common sense!!
I've always liked Fred. He isn't your typical pandering flip flopping politician. He's a statesman. A rarity today.
I had the honor of voting for two of the greatest statesmen in my life time. Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan.
Fred is that kind of candidate. He doesn't lust for the presidency, but rather sees it as a calling or duty.
So I guess yopu havent’t heard that in the past couple of weeks, Fred amd his campaign picked up the ensorsements of Tom Mclintock in California and Bob Beers in Nevada, was praised by Mark Steyn and National Right to Life, rolled out two very good TV commercials, announced two major policy plans (one on illegal immigration an another on Social Security reform), spoke out against the UN’s gun-confiscation agenda, blasted Hillary for supporting drivers licenses for illegals and compared her fundraising to the 1996 Clinton scandal, spoke out on gun ownership and border control, made remarks about Huckabee which Hot Air characterized as grinding the Huckster “into a fine powder,” was endorsed by the conservative activist group Arkansas Republican Assemblies, created a stir by telling Mitt that he “can’t buy South Carolina,” sat for several major interviews (including Meet the Press, Human Events, Hannity and KCRA-TV, among others) announced important additions to his team (including the former Executive Director of The Arlington Group, nearly every elected Republican in the state of Tennessee and the leader of the Christian Coalition in Broward County, Florida, among others), announced the formation of Veterans for Fred (with Major General James Livingston and General Carl Stiner as National Co-Chairs, Lieutenant Colonel Joe Repya as National Executive Director and 35 others named) and campaigned hard (in IA, SC, NH, FL, VA, TN and NV).
Missed that did you? It was all posted on the web and summarized on Fredipedia, along with more Fredbuzz. All you had to do was click on one of the Fredipedia links (there are usually one or two of them in every Fred thread on FR).
Howard Baker, for one. And you don’t have to talk like you are in the men’s locker room to a lady, SR!
Thank you. I mean that. I wasn’t here during the Schaivo thing, so I wondered if any other conservatives felt as strongly as I do on it. We as Republicans looked like total fools during that period. Especially Bill Frist, who ironically supports Thompson now I think.
That’s Rudy McRombee, pilgrim. Rudy McRomney is so yesterday... Gotta take note of the fact that the drive-by media is lifting up yet another GOP candidate so he can be shot down.
**************
You have a point. His remark could have been made in a more respectful way.
100% spot-on correct.
Mike Huckabee is a fairly good candidate on most issues.
I wouldn’t support him in the primary though because he is too soft on illegal immigration, an issue on which quite frankly I trust Thompson more than the other top tier candidates.
I know you didn't ask ME, but it looked to me like the original poster was talking more about conservatives disaffected with the establishment and how THEY might project things -- or rather, reject projections suggested by the establishment RNC.
Did [Thompson] really show much concern about immigration when he was in the Senate?
It wasn't remotely the issue then that it is now, so the question is rather irrelevant except in terms of consistencey, in which case it would have to be to see if Thompson then held philosphically opposite views on illegal immigration in general than he does now. Do YOU know any examples of it?
Was federalism really an important principle for Fred when he was in the Senate?
Thompson has said that the whole reason he became a Republican, having been raised by Democrat parents, is because he so strongly believes in the principle that less government is better government. His entire voting record supports that. I'd say it's pretty obvious that Federalsism (or more accurately, a consistent stance AGAINST increased Federal overriding of state law and personal freedoms) has been an "important principle" for Thompson even since before he was in the senate!
I hope so... Rooty McRomney and ‘The Preacher’ don’t push my buttons.
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.