Posted on 12/20/2007 3:17:30 PM PST by thelastinkling
Dear Tancredo Supporters:
(Excerpt) Read more at dhgrassrevolt.wordpress.com ...
Polls are not reality.
.
.
According to Intrade, the winner of the December 12th GOP debate was... Duncan Hunter.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1938773/posts
LOL
Waaaaaaa!!!!
Statistics is a science. That is reality.
The stuff you post is garbage, completely unburdened by reality or intelligent application of science.
By your standards, if Thompson is such a lousy candidate, then Hunter is the worst candidate of all time.
Yours must be red as Fred’s numbers are going down
and others didn’t know he is running.
And Huckabee has surged because he is the best pick for president?
Thread bump!
Worth repeating! LOUDLY!!!!
Yup, today they went down substantially, I’m guessing due to the fact that Tancredo didn’t endorse Hunter.
Romney is about to overtake Giuliani for the Nom contract, which makes me feel just fine that Rudy is going down.
President.Field continues to move in high volume and Hunter’s volume is high, presumably because it’s a bargain.
Maybe Hunter is down 96% from its peak, but your guy is the ony GOP candidate to squander a 30 point lead.
Glad to see you consider this data to be trustworthy enough to quote it.
And, since you have called me a troll for logging onto ‘Pro Thompson’ threads and supporting my candidate with facts & analysis, it’s time to return the favor, TROLL.
.
.
.
According to Intrade, the winner of the December 12th GOP debate was... Duncan Hunter.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1938773/posts
Then why didn’t you refute it when it spit out the Huckster as the winner of previous debates? After all, since Hunter is my candidate and I’ve posting the Huckster as the winner by my objective analysis, that proves I proceeded from an unbiased perspective. The reason: Because it was factually based and objective in approach — that is, until it spits out Hunter as the winner, then you have a problem with it. Just like you don’t have a problem with how Intrade showed your guy in the lead, so Intrade was good; but when Intrade showed your guy losing 30 points, Intrade is unreliable according to you. What a bunch of hogwash.
The only thing you’ve EVER done is portray your guy in a subjectivist positive mode. And you call other freepers liars over the most miniscule details, so there’s no good reason to listen to you.
Good luck with your candidate.
.
.
.
According to Intrade, the winner of the December 12th GOP debate was... Duncan Hunter.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1938773/posts
Nope. I clearly said that I cited it because YOU consider it so important.
...your guy is the ony GOP candidate to squander a 30 point lead.
Your "analysis" of the Dec 12 debate was that percentage change was important. Now that your guy has lost 96%, you want to go back to actual losses. Fine.
I'll point out again that Hunter Duncan never had a "30-point lead" to lose. He never had even had a 3-point lead, or any lead at all.
He's just raising a war chest for his son's congressional run. His whole vanity campaign seems to be a fundraising farce.
Good luck with that.
Because I wasn't aware of your "analysis." It's just not that important.
Hunter hasn’t squandered a 30 point lead, nor the kind of enviable name recognition that Thompson has. You don’t understand the standard.
.
.
.
According to Intrade, the winner of the December 12th GOP debate was... Duncan Hunter.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1938773/posts
And Huckabee has surged because he is the best pick for president?
***No, Huckabee has surged because he won a couple of debates and he’s got evangelical support. If a quick rise can happen to the liberal pro-life evangelical Huckster, it can happen to the conservative pro-life evangelical Hunter.
.
.
.
According to Intrade, the winner of the December 12th GOP debate was... Duncan Hunter.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1938773/posts
Then why are you aware of the analysis now that it spits out Hunter as the winner? If it wasn’t important enough for you to support your candidate on those previous debates, why is it suddenly important to you once a social conservative evangelical wins the debate?
The reason: because after Huckster won the debates, he rose in the polls, and you’re scared the same thing could happen with Hunter.
.
.
.
According to Intrade, the winner of the December 12th GOP debate was... Duncan Hunter.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1938773/posts
You're insane.
As long as you don’t mind, I may borrow a paragraph or two for our precinct caucus.
Huckabee hasn’t won any debates.
His surge has been solely based on his personality and humor as perceived by Joe six pack.
I am gonna go out on a limb here and predict that when it sinks into those folks that Huck is wrong on the issues, Fred will pick up the fallout.
He is correct on most issues and has the same type of wit, though slower and dryer.
It's not the media.
It is respectable mainstream conservative leaders, analysts, and pundits who have taken a long, hard look at all Republican candidates, and conclude that certain ones stand the best chance of winning.
Ann Coulter, Paul Weyrich, Jay Sekulow, Judge Robert Bork, Hugh Hewitt, Bob Jones III, Michael Medved, Ben Stein, Michael Smerconish, Rich Lowrey, National Review, David Bossie, Tom Tancredo, etc.
The list goes on and on of those who support Romney.
I'm sure these Romney endorsers (like myself) love and respect Hunter, Thompson, Tancredo, and even John McCain.
They just feel Romney is the best (conservative supporting) candidate to win in '08.
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.