Posted on 11/15/2007 3:49:47 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
Republican presidential hopeful Fred Thompson brushed off concerns Thursday about his single-digit showings in recent Iowa and New Hampshire polls, saying he expects a new television ad on immigration will help boost his numbers. "In the past, a lot of things have changed in the Iowa presidential elections - Howard Dean can tell you that," he said, referring to 2004 when Dean's third-place showing in Iowa derailed his campaign for the Democratic nomination.
"So you've just got to do what you do and keep at it and understand that the end of the day is all that counts," he said.
CBS/New York Times polls in Iowa and New Hampshire show Thompson at 9 and 5 percent for Republicans, respectively. Mitt Romney leads both states with 34 percent in New Hampshire and 27 percent in Iowa.
Thompson, who was in New York for a fundraiser and a closed town-hall meeting, said he expects his recently released television ad in Iowa to help sway voters in that crucial state. The ad stresses the need to secure U.S. borders and enforce immigration laws.
Illegal immigration has divided Republicans and remains a critical issue to many GOP voters. This past summer, Arizona Sen. John McCain supported legislation that would have strengthened border security and allowed for many illegal immigrants to become citizens. The leading GOP contenders, Romney and Rudy Giuliani, both opposed the legislation, which was backed by President Bush (website - news - bio) but failed in the Senate.
On Thursday, Thompson reiterated that the government should strip federal dollars from cities and states that don't report illegal immigrants, and he criticized Giuliani for "going to court to preserve sanctuary cities" while he was mayor of New York City.
Giuliani has defended New York's so-called sanctuary policy, which stopped city workers from reporting suspected illegal immigrants. He sued the federal government to keep his city's policy.
"If we will enforce the border, if we will stop inducements like sanctuary cities, and we will tell employers that they're going to have to obey the law too, then over a period of time, this situation will turn much to the good," Thompson said.
The former Tennessee senator tried to highlight other differences between himself and Giuliani, who has been a supporter of gun control and abortion. Thompson is opposed to both.
He also said the Romney campaign should stop "whining" about losing the National Right To Life Committee's endorsement to him. Thompson said he believed the endorsement would help at the polls.
Same kind of arguments we heard about aRINOld.
The difference is that Fred is actually a conservative.
Nice try, but I’ll give you a “D” for effort.
It’s almost as if the major talk radio hosts got some black-helicopter-delivered message:
“Fred’s not one of us. Ignore him. Trumpet Rudy McRomney.”
I’m not that tinfoily, but if I were, it would totally refute the claims of the Paulistas and some Hunterheads that “Fred is a globalist hand-picked CFR candidate” or that he’s the “RNC insider pick” this time around.
Kevmo: That was the whole point to my post, to show that Hunter is extremely undervalued
Kevkrom: By what reasonable analysis?
***By this reasonable analysis: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1926032/posts?page=1,250
You’re the one touting the efficiency of the futures markets, yet you fail to accept that Hunter’s “potential” is already built into the current trading price.
***Every market has its inefficiencies. That’s why the arbitrage folks can make money. I have found a potential hole that Hunter supporters could get a two-for-one deal on. They get to put their money where their mouth is, see his support rise, and they could make money on the whole process. That has got to be unique in the history of politics.
That price has remained stagnant for four months now — the market has spoken and it says that no one wants to take Hunter at even a potential 1000:1 payout.
***Sounds like a bargain to me. And if the Hunter supporters send out my article to their buddies and someone starts nibbling, we could see some real dynamic changes in that market and some liquidity in his contract price. In the meantime, the same folks will be checking on the forum threads at Intrade and they’ll see reasoned considerations that aren’t even said here on Free Republic.
Hunter Intrade Forum
http://bb.intrade.com/intradeForum/posts/list/1797.page
Thompson Intrade Forum
http://bb.intrade.com/intradeForum/posts/list/1805.page
Give it a rest. I love duncan, but he’s 2% in the polls and he started running nearly a year before Fred. He’s got a fire in his belly and what good has it done?
You are giving the rest of us duncan hunter fans a bad name.
The best man that is above the margin of error is FRED. Support him while there is still time.
Robbin
The difference is that Fred is actually a conservative.
***That’s true enough. So why are we seeing the same kinds of arguments?
You want it to be true, so therefore you assume it will be so. But the people who put the time and effort into it and put their own money on the line about it say otherwise.
Take a deep breath, step back from your own biases and assumptions, and realize that Hunter's contract is stagnant at the minimum trading value because there is absolutely no interest in him, and no expectation that the situation will change.
You are giving the rest of us duncan hunter fans a bad name.
***You’ve been posting as a fan of Fred since 06/18/2007.
I don’t see any pro-Hunter posts in your posting history.
Quite literally, you have NO idea what you are talking about. Everything you post is WILLFULLY ignorant, inexcusable, really.
There was NO invective in my last post, by the way, only what might have been eye opening insights.
Let me go pack to one point where you ignorance stands exposed. Hunter contracts at 10 cents are NOT undervalued by the market. And this has nothing whatsoever with whether or not I like another candidate. Even if I were a die-hard Hunter fanatic, this fact would remain. It’s OBVIOUS.
The Hunter contracts are OVERVALUED at 10 cents, and that’s precisely the reason there are no buyers. How many barrels of south texas light would be sitting on the loading dock unsold if they were priced at $10 a barrel? Exactly none. But what if they were priced a $1,000 a barrel. They’d sit there forever, just like the Hunter contracts are doing at 10 cents.
Come on, man, think about what you are saying! Unless you WANT to be taken for a fool.
For me I just like FDT better.
For others I don’t know.
That’s not “reasonable analysis”, that’s wishful thinking.
***Then I challenge you to discuss the reasonability of the analysis on that thread. 290 posts and no one can knock down the analysis.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1926032/posts?page=1,250
If the analysis was as far off as you suggest, then the Intraders would have dismantled it. They don’t proceed from the kind of bias that you do.
http://bb.intrade.com/intradeForum/posts/list/1805.page
I'll tackle you where you post this spam. I've already "knocked down" your analysis more times than I care to count.
NO ONE WANTS TO TAKE HUNTER, EVEN AT A 1000:1 PAYOUT
That's it, pure and simple. Even if Hunter were to crawl his way to 5% in a reputable poll, he still has a 0% probability of being the Republican nominee, and the Intrade investors KNOW it. There is no upside to a Hunter contract because it will eventually be worth $0.00 -- that's why no one can dump shares even at the bare minimum $0.10 trading price.
Iowa and NH are damn near meaningless for the GOP nomination anymore.
I ahve not been to In Trade, it’s blocked here for some reason. Has no one put ANY money on anything Hunter?
Quite literally, you have NO idea what you are talking about. Everything you post is WILLFULLY ignorant, inexcusable, really.
***The same analysis is over at Intrade and the same levels of discussion among traders appears to suggest that you do not know what you are talking about.
There was NO invective in my last post, by the way, only what might have been eye opening insights.
***You’re just defending your candidate, the one who lost 30 points on Intrade, who’s dropping in the polls, has no fire in the belly and is now in the way of the best conservative in the race.
Let me go pack to one point where you ignorance stands exposed. Hunter contracts at 10 cents are NOT undervalued by the market. And this has nothing whatsoever with whether or not I like another candidate. Even if I were a die-hard Hunter fanatic, this fact would remain. It’s OBVIOUS.
***And yet, the Intraders seem to think it’s not so OBVIOUS. Once the bias of your position is removed, you end up just looking like someone who’s trying to support his candidate, on a pitiful thread where that candidate says his poll numbers will turn around. By now, Fred was supposed to be knocking out tootyfruityrudy, but instead we see him grovelling for patience from his supporters.
The Hunter contracts are OVERVALUED at 10 cents, and that’s precisely the reason there are no buyers.
***Cool. So it’s time for the Hunter folks to tell their friends and go & buy those contracts. There was only ~$2200 in contracts offered at the time and in one swoop the price would have gone up 5X.
How many barrels of south texas light would be sitting on the loading dock unsold if they were priced at $10 a barrel? Exactly none. But what if they were priced a $1,000 a barrel. They’d sit there forever, just like the Hunter contracts are doing at 10 cents.
***And how do you find bargains? If you found a thousand barrels at $1/bbl for sale because they had been sitting around for a long time, would they be a good bargain? Hunter is a bargain right now. The oil market is pretty efficient, and yet every once in awhile there are bargains. There’s even arbitrage in that market — I’ve heard that ships will load up their tankers, go to some other country, sit for a few days, sail around the world and sell the same oil that was supposed to sell at some predetermined price but now it’s from XYZ country so that rule no longer applies and they sell it at market price.
Come on, man, think about what you are saying! Unless you WANT to be taken for a fool.
***Feel free to take on my analysis on the Intrade forum with other traders. Putting stuff in capitals is impressive. But I don’t see you over there where your analysis would fall apart instantly due to your obvious bias for your candidate.
Ok, I see now we’re getting to the point where you guys are posting in CAPITAL LETTERS rather than discussing the analysis on the analysis thread. The reason: Because this makes your candidate look bad and you don’t like it. Try to think about what this particular thread is all about, that Thompson argues the polls will change. When all you have left is insults and shrill capital-letter-bold-italic comments, it shows that you’re afraid of how this shows your candidate in the negative light. He’s had the positive light, and squandered the lead in the polls and a 30 point lead at Intrade, and with a negative light his followers end up getting shrill. The candidacy shows more signs of imploding than turning around.
Looking at the advanced graphing, there has been no significant activity since mid-October (and that looks like a one-day spike), and the share price has been constant at the minimum trade value: $0.10.
What Kevmo fails to understand is that a political futures market is not the same as a commodities market. Eventually, one of those contracts is going to be worth $1.00 a share, and all of the others will be a $0.00 a share. There is no proportional payout based on votes or delegates received -- it's all or nothing.
Since there is no conceivable way the Hunter contract is going to be the one contract priced at $1.00 in the end, the market has already assumed that it is worth $0.00 a share, and no one (not suffering from wishful thinking) is going to pay more than that.
That's a bald lie, if the link you've provided is the only place you've posted your 'analysis' -- it's the last post of the topic and no one's replied to it. What "levels of discussion among traders" are you talking about?
I followed YOUR link. If that's what you're using to bolster your claims, you clearly are delusional.
I was emphasizing the point you seem to miss.
The reason: Because this makes your candidate look bad and you don’t like it.
This has nothing to do with "my candidate" or your candidate. You're simply wrong, and you apparently have no idea what you're talking about. The points I'm making actually work against Thompson -- it shows that despite his relatively high polling, the market perceives him as having a small (but finite) probability of winning.
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.