April 18, 2007
My Power Rankings: April 2007
1) Rudy Giuliani. Despite a number of self-imposed missteps and an increasingly hostile press, Mayor Giuliani still tops the Republican presidential field. Republicans like frontrunners, and as long as Giuliani’s in the lead, he will have easy access to the establishmentarians and purse strings of the national GOP. While a case of buyer’s remorse seems to be setting in among some, until another candidate is actually able to overtake Rudy in a credible national poll, he deserves no title other than frontrunner for the GOP nod.
2) Fred Thompson. Yes, I now consider Sen. Thompson as the second most likely candidate to win the GOP nomination, even though he hasn’t even formed an exploratory committee yet. The reason is that Thompson is as perfect a conservative candidate that the base is going to get this time around. He’s a red-stater, a fiscal conservative, a social conservative, and a defense conservative. He’s got the folksiness of Bush and the gravitas of Cheney, yet he has the albatross of neither around his neck. Further, like the McCain of the 1990s, FDT knows how to talk to swing voters in Purple America by amassing a solidly conservative voting record without wearing cultural issues on his sleeve, and by possessing both a libertarian and a populist streak, a feat that few since Reagan have been able to pull off. With rumors swirling that the GOP establishmentarians from the now defunct Allen and Frist camps may be ready to anoint Thompson as the establishment candidate should he jump in, a Thompson run will give us a glimpse at a fully operational GOP Death Star, one that would definitely prove fatal to McCain and Romney and perhaps even to Rudy himself.
3) John McCain. There’s only one way that McCain, with his paltry funds and shrinking donor base, can win the nod. First, Rudy has to continue to tack to the left on social issues. Then, Romney has to take off just a bit more in the polls. FDT has to enter, as does Newt. At that point, McCain could amass a series of early primary victories with just 25-30 percent of the vote, likely all the senator will get unless he is matched against a candidate GOPers want to vote for even less. McCain’s still in the top 3 because he’s the default candidate, the old war horse who’s waited his turn.
4) Mitt Romney. Mitt’s shown his smarts and managerial acumen by putting together a campaign that dwarfs anything fellow governors Huckabee and Tommy Thompson have accomplished. But Romney made a critical error early on in the campaign, when he attempted to run to the field’s right on social issues despite a record of moderate to liberal policy positions on these issues. The new media caught Mitt red handed, creating an aura of opportunism around his candidacy that’s never quite gone away. With lots of cash in the bank yet numbers no more significant than those of Steve Forbes seven years ago, Romney may just be going the Forbes route, or perhaps the route of another GOP contender, Phil Gramm, another favorite of the intellectuals on the Right who flamed out well before things got serious in 1996.
5) Newt Gingrich. He’ll never be nominated because he’s unelectable. But that doesn’t stop conservatives from giving Newt higher numbers than potentially electable candidates like Huckabee and T. Thompson. Newt’s ability to articulate conservatism is sorely needed after two terms of Bush, but Gingrich’s ship has long since sailed.
6) Mike Huckabee. Among the lower-tier candidates, Huckabee probably deserves the top rank for not being a niche candidate, not scaring off swing voters, and generally being in tune with the red-state base on cultural issues. He’s the most likely running mate for a GOP nominee who needs to shore up the border states.
7) Sam Brownback. Similar to Huckabee but with a greater emphasis on abortion, Brownback has staked out moderate positions on immigration and the war, while holding firm to his social conservatism. As with Huckabee, this “socially conservative, but moderate on everything else” platform doesn’t seem to be particularly marketable this time around.
Tommy Thompson. Despite his near-perfect CV for the nomination as the former governor of a swing state in the nation’s prime swing region, and a center-right conservative at that, this candidate Thompson seems not to be making waves. Thirty years ago, Tommy Thompson could’ve taken Iowa by storm and Jimmy Carter’d his way to the nod. Not so with contemporary primary schedules. I can’t help but wonder if Tim Pawlenty, who’s like Thompson but more of a television candidate, would’ve had a different fate.
9) Duncan Hunter. The congressman gets some traction in certain corners of the right-wing Web, but support is generally non-existent among the public at large and the donors. His supporters will be scooped up by whichever of Fred Thompson or Newt Gingrich decides to make a serious run.
10) Tom Tancredo. He’s the Sam Brownback to Hunter’s Huckabee. Tancredo is like Hunter, but even less attractive to voters who aren’t motivated by the sole issue of immigration.
11) Jim Gilmore. As with Huckabee and Tommy Thompson, here’s another accomplished former governor that’s just not getting any traction. Perhaps Republicans are looking for a larger-than-life persona this time around, which is understandable given the hill the GOP has to climb to hold the White House next year, and even more understandable in a time of war and crisis.
12) Chuck Hagel. The GOP will never nominate such a staunch critic of Iraq. Never, never, never, never.
13) Ron Paul. While Paul’s almost extreme libertarianism provides for an interesting voice in the field, voters are looking for toughness, competence, and electability this time around, with ideology less important than all of those.
http://race42008.com/2007/04/18/my-power-rankings-april-2007/trackback/
April 18th, 2007 at 9:59 am
An un-declaired in 2nd place? That’s a pretty hard smack to the other candidates.
April 18th, 2007 at 10:11 am
How could you possibly argue that Brownback is socially conservative but moderate on everything else? He has earned rave reviews from the NRA, the Club for Growth, especially with his support for the flat tax, and has gotten high marks from Citizens Against Government Waste. Sure, he’s less than perfect on immigration and has proposed a different means of pursuing peace in Iraq, but those two issues are hardly “everything else”.
April 18th, 2007 at 10:15 am
Sean, down boy. What DaveG means is that Brownback has waffled on issue like Iraq and immigration.
CHILL, DUDE!
Why is it that the supporters of “so-called” ultra conservatives, like Romney and Brownback, are so testy on this blog?? Do they have something to fear? (Losing, maybe?)
April 18th, 2007 at 10:28 am
I wouldn’t say that Sam is moderate on everything else. But he certainly is so on two key issues: Iraq and Immigration.
April 18th, 2007 at 10:29 am
DaveG
It’s difficult for me to understand how you can put FT in 2nd place. If Fred goes strolling down South Elm Street in Manchester he’ll see a fully functioning NH Romney office. Just a street or two away he’ll see a sign that says: McCain HQ.
While Fred is dithering over whether or not to run… Romney is organizing his West Michigan Team (the WEST team mind you). He already has representatives working phones, endorsements, fundraisers and more across 12 different states.
Just today, for example, while Fred T. is speaking to congressional leaders at some obscure forum at the Capital Club Romney is raising $250,000 at the AGA just blocks away.
(actually, I think both events were postponed because of the recent events)
Polls 9 months out from Iowa, NH and SC are small reflections of trends and popularity not the vindication of some ultimate conservative candidate. FT has yet to be tested in the fire of political presidential musings.
I have yet to hear a valid argument against the McCain and Romney ground game.
Just a quick example: How long does it take to put together a two-day mutli-site single city fundraising tour. Approx. 4-6 weeks. When will Fred have his first fundraising event? June? By that time Q2 numbers will be coming to a close and he will be approx. $20 million behind the game.
April 18th, 2007 at 10:30 am
KT, that’s not what he said. What’s more, Brownback hasn’t waffled on Iraq. He supported the use of force and has consistently opposed a withdrawl deadline. He even opted not to vote against a troop surge. What he did was propose an alternative strategy.
As to immigration, he has not waffled at all. He has taken a position that does not toe the conservative hard-line. Do I agree with him on that issue? No, but he certainly can’t be called a waffler.
April 18th, 2007 at 10:39 am
DaveG, what is behind your optimism? FDT is already included in polls and is in the low single digits. He has a power base in the mid-Atlantic, sure, but there’s nothing behind your statement that he can appeal to Purple America. Because he’s an actor? Why don’t we run Dennis Miller, then? Charlton Heston can be his VP to get the NRA vote.
April 18th, 2007 at 10:58 am
DaveG: Great minds think alike. I posted my rankings the same order in a comment the other day.
Yes, the argument against the year-out ground game has been made. Historical examples, too. It seems the Romneybots for some reason are unable to recognize charisma when they see it, and thus fail to understand why so many voters *love* Rudy and Fred.
April 18th, 2007 at 11:02 am
David B, or perhaps Romney supporters prefer to use reason rather than emotion when making decisions.
April 18th, 2007 at 11:06 am
A few disagreements here. First, Rudy is not “tacking to the left”. He’s showing his true positions. Second, this quote:
Are you attempting to say Romney tried to “sneak” his pro-life conversion by the GOP? This just seems to rediculous, so I hope you’ll clarify what you meant. Romney has been open and candid about his abortion policy switch since 2005. Furthermore, he’s been completely consistent on gay marriage and civil unions, immigration policy, and other social issues.
Now I’m really confused. Thompson’s got pro-choice policy statements in his past, and he has NOT come clean on why he changed. And you are calling him the real deal on social conservatism?
Sorry Dave, but this post is loaded with spin.
April 18th, 2007 at 11:07 am
I knew this was going to be fun.
1) The line about Huckabee and Brownback being “moderate on everything else” wasn’t meant to be taken literally or to the extreme. “Everything else” refers to a number of other important issues that puts them out of step with the GOP base, despite their supporters who claim that cultural issues are all that matter. (Warning: this comment will generate at least 10 comments.)
2) I consider FDT to be the second most likely GOP nominee for the following reasons:
A) Yes, it’s true he hasn’t declared yet, but every single step he takes suggests a run, and every single insider predicts a run. So it’s likely he’ll run.
B) Yes, he’s behind in the ground game, but as I recall, that was the very same argument used by Romney and McCain supporters as to why Rudy shouldn’t bother to enter. If Romney and McCain were really so strong, Rudy wouldn’t have been able to sleep through 2006 and then jump in this year and put McCain to shame in fundraising and Romney to shame in the polls.
C) The very fact that there’s an FDT groundswell demonstrates that lots of people are grudgingly supporting one of the Big 3, but would abandon that support should FDT enter. In fact, one of the GOP’s most prominent southern fundraisers who is now on Team Romney recently pointed out that he had no idea FDT might run, and he wouldn’t just turn his back on Mitt, but IF Romney were to drop out… He apparently repeated the “if Mitt were to drop out…” line several times to the reporter. We’ll see how long his and others’ loyalty lasts if FDT gets in.
D) FDT will have the red-state GOP establishmentarians of Allen and Frist and the RNC backing him, but unlike Allen and Frist, he’s actually a politically savvy candidate. That’s why I describe a Gillespie/Matalin-backed FDT candidacy as a fully operational Death Star, not those earlier prototypes.
E) If FDT stays out, I think Rudy wins. In every poll taken of the Big 3, Rudy decimates both McCain and Romney. McCain has very little cash on hand and his fundraising machine is collapsing. Romney OTOH has a decent fundraising machine but, like Phil Gramm, isn’t being embraced by the populace at large. As a man of logic, I see two options: i) either FDT stays out and Rudy beats McCain, Romney, et al, and becomes the nominee or ii) FDT enters and either Rudy or FDT becomes the nominee. Since both of those scenarios involve either Rudy or FDT as the nominee, and none involve McCain or Romney becoming the nominee, I see no reason to rank either McCain or Romney above FDT.
Given all this, I can conclude nothing other than FDT being the second most likely GOP nominee.
(Warning! This comment will generate 1200 comments!)
April 18th, 2007 at 11:09 am
I may have missed the arguments against the ground game. I love reiteration. Please do so.
April 18th, 2007 at 11:10 am
DaveG,
Something I’m not quite clear on, and I hope all the folks generating their rankings might weigh in.
Are the rankings meant to reflect the CURRENT strength of the candidates, or the candidate’s EXPECTED chances of winning the nod?
April 18th, 2007 at 11:10 am
DaveG: I agree with E completely. Though you never know for sure what will emerge out of what may well soon be a 4-way tie.
April 18th, 2007 at 11:11 am
I think it interesting as neither party has a frontrunner who can muster above 35%. Hillary seems stuck in the low 30’s and Rudy is dropping after pecking at 35%. McCain early started out about 30%. The thing is on the Dems Hillary might not go above 35% but she may not drop much below 30%. McCain has and Rudy will likely drop below that number.
April 18th, 2007 at 11:14 am
I don’t know, murphy. Kavon can weigh in on that question if he wants. I just call it as I see it.
April 18th, 2007 at 11:18 am
DaveG, what are your predictions for FDT’s jump in polls after formally declaring, and what do you see as the resulting damage to his competitors? I actually think he’s got as much support as he’s going to get, since people are free to choose him in the polls and it’s a purely emotional decision to choose FDT. For a comparison, Guiliani has polled well for the last year or so and got a short term surge after declaring, but has now settled back to his long-term support levels. I believe the same would happen with FDT, and I’m wondering why you think otherwise.
Your point D doesn’t resonate. What makes FDT a politically savvy candidate? And why should a power base in TN dominate a national race? It didn’t seem to help Gore. Gillespie’s advice didn’t help Allen win, either. Some liberals trust government too much, and I guess some conservatives trust the establishment too much.
April 18th, 2007 at 11:19 am
I take it nobody read yesterdays topic on ground game and Justin missed yesterday in the same discussion the reasons why Fred is “dithering” on whether he’ll run. To reiterate it: Fred is cannot legally declare at this moment as he is under contract with a national broadcasting network until the first of May. If you have any questions, please go down to the post yesterday about Fred Thompson and I laid out the reasons. I have to go to work until 5 pm eastern, and don’t have the time to write it all out again. Also points out the ground dilemma
April 18th, 2007 at 11:20 am
JF: you’re wrong on that count. When begins campaigning in the south, it’s his to lose. Edwards would have a shot at beating our other candidates down here. That is why when he and McCain came to TN on Monday, nobody even knew McCain was going to be here, while Edwards was treated like royalty.
April 18th, 2007 at 11:21 am
Here’s what you are failing to realize:
Edwards woos Rural Votes:
http://www.newsobserver.com/114/story/564981.html
Florida cash Going to Democrats:
http://www.sptimes.com/2007/04/17/State/Florida_cash_going_to.shtml
Edwards says rivals haven’t been tested in the south:
http://www1.whdh.com/news/articles/national/BO49316/
April 18th, 2007 at 11:23 am
“Your point D doesn’t resonate. What makes FDT a politically savvy candidate?”
All of his pre-campaign writings and Paul Harvey spots on the issues of the day have been very savvy, almost refreshingly savvy, and articulate conservative positions w/o turning off moderates. Also, dumping the cancer issue now was smart.
As far as the polls, a lot of people don’t know who he is yet. He’ll go up a notch after he enters and a few more notches after the Death Star becomes fully operational and another few notches as candidates begin to drop out.
April 18th, 2007 at 11:24 am
Heres what you are failing to realize. Edwards campaign manager even has a book out that sets a strategy to win back the south in 08. I don’t have time to debate the national election and who carries what states right now, but remember, one reason that Bush won in 2004 was that Kerry practicly conceded 224 electoral votes and over 102 milllion in popular votes.
Heres what I’m talking about:
Edwards woos Rural Votes:
http://www.newsobserver.com/114/story/564981.html
Florida cash Going to Democrats:
http://www.sptimes.com/2007/04/17/State/Florida_cash_going_to.shtml
Edwards says rivals haven’t been tested in the south:
http://www1.whdh.com/news/articles/national/BO49316/
April 18th, 2007 at 11:25 am
Tommy,
It seems to me that there’s nothing wrong with Fred developing his ground game. Both McCain and Romney put serious work into their organizations before declaring their candidacies. Fred’s TV contract only restricts his declaration.
He’s dithering with his ground game.
April 18th, 2007 at 11:26 am
Those numbers include rural states, where FDT is polling strong.
Oh yeah, who was it on this board that said Fred’s in low single digits? Whoever it was obviously hasn’t been paying any attention to the race.
April 18th, 2007 at 11:28 am
Who says he hasn’t put in work? It can’t be announced in any way, but there are rallys scheduled for the next two weeks in different states that I am aware of. It’s off and running. He can’t officially open any sort of campaign offices until after he has declared, I know that much.
April 18th, 2007 at 11:31 am
I gotta go work, I’ll be around later
April 18th, 2007 at 11:31 am
Tommy, you’re right, I was wrong. FDT is polling in the MID single digits.
April 18th, 2007 at 11:34 am
JF: Are you ignorant?
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/republican_presidential_nomination-192.html
April 18th, 2007 at 11:37 am
David B, no, but perhaps you are. NH, SC, IA, and NV will drive the nomination. National polls are irrelevant.
April 18th, 2007 at 11:38 am
Riiiiight.
April 18th, 2007 at 11:40 am
I think you have your parties mixed up.
April 18th, 2007 at 11:43 am
“Irrelevant.” Still having a good laugh over that one. I thought Romneybots were all about facts. (I never bought that.)
April 18th, 2007 at 11:50 am
Well, DaveG made his list based on “the most likely to win the GOP nomination”. By that standard incredible varieties of lists are possible.
If we restrict the list to simply who is ahead today (with a look at a mix of early state and national polling) and we slightly adjust candidates based on money and ground game than there’s only one list:
1) Rudy
2) McCain
3) Romney
4) Thompson
5) Newt
6) Brownback
7) Huckabee
and the also-rans who aren’t distinguishable at this point.
The last few ‘lists’ have done too much peering into crystal balls trying to push candidates higher in the list than they currently are.
April 18th, 2007 at 11:55 am
David B, my cardinal sin was in trying to take a snapshot of primary order while the states still fight to hold them earlier and earlier. NV is attempting to move up its primary (http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2008/nv08/nvgop0119muth.html) before FL, and since FL’s is tied to NH’s date, everything has been shifting. So I don’t have my parties mixed up, but I find that ironic for a supporter of a blue dog Democrat in Republican clothing.
As for the relevance of the national polls, the burden is on you to prove that national polls before the primaries were accurate indicators of who went on to win the nomination in previous cycles. How about a link?
April 18th, 2007 at 11:55 am
David B,
I don’t have any delusions about you being for honesty and fairness…as demonstrated be your continued ridicule of Romney and his supporters. I seem to recall we went over this the other day and yet you insist.
April 18th, 2007 at 12:06 pm
JF: You ARE ignorant. A Blue Dog Democrat is socially conservative and economically liberal. Rudy is the EXACT OPPOSITE. Have you no understanding of anything other than bad conventional wisdom?
April 18th, 2007 at 12:07 pm
JF: Regarding the relevance of national polls, I suggest you study the history of Republican nominations. And read a thing our two outside your limited Romneybot sphere.
April 18th, 2007 at 12:11 pm
As a die hard McCainiac, I can’t see anybody beating John except maybe F.Thompson. National polls aren’t as important as the early primary state polls and in almost every one of them, McCain or Guliani are either number one, number two, or second choice for number one. Here’s how I think it will play out. In the weeks before the IA caucus and the Nh primary the airwaves will be filled with negative ads from all candidates. Does anyone here honestly think after hearing about Rudy’s position (and) history on social issues, specifically ferderal funding of abortions, is going to vote for him? As far a Mitt is concerned, a series of adds exposing his contradictions (whether you believe they’re contradictions or not doesn’t matter–most people do) will sink his candidacy in short order. That leaves John, he’s not perfect, but most Republicans agree with most of what he supports, he has years and years of military/foreign policy experience, and has a certain crossover appeal due to several stances he has made against his party. Not only that–the man is a former POW–who deserves it more? F.Thompson, I think is John’s biggest hurdle.
April 18th, 2007 at 12:11 pm
David B, holy cow, you are incapable of telling the truth. Here’s a quote directly from the official Blue Dog congressional site:
http://www.house.gov/ross/BlueDogs/
If you spent 30 seconds there, you would have saved yourself the humiliation of being caught in a lie.
As for your post #36: basically, you’re admitting you have no proof. If you had proof, you would have provided it. So as it stands, yes, the national polls are irrelevant at this stage.
April 18th, 2007 at 12:12 pm
I, however, am not ignorant and I have mentioned several times that national polling this early is of limited value. It is certainly not useful to say someone can’t win because they are 10 pts down. As JF said, the burden of proof is on you as you are the one spewing forth predictions regarding the generals.
Once again you resort to insults and name calling.
April 18th, 2007 at 12:19 pm
Liberal “fiscal conservatism” is the opposite of economic conservatism. It is used to raise taxes in order to balance budgets.
April 18th, 2007 at 12:21 pm
You may argue early state polls are more important, certainly. But to say national polls are irrelevant is laughable. Trust me, I’m not the only one laughing. I’ve received emails from others who are tired of the Romneybot facism on this blog.
I look forward to FDT destroying the Romney campaign so we can get into a REAL political debate here.
April 18th, 2007 at 12:22 pm
Back to #40, I didn’t realize there were so many Republicans falling for the DNC/Blue Dog line that they were really fiscal conservatives. It’s a good idea to differentiate that from economic conservatism.
April 18th, 2007 at 12:23 pm
This calls into question Romney’s alleged economic conservatism, if his die-hard supporters think the Blue Dogs are supply-siders. That’s a good one.
April 18th, 2007 at 12:28 pm
David B, I’m glad you’re having a good time posting to yourself here and emailing yourself messages of support. But please stop digging, it is making me cringe. A fiscal conservative is a fiscal conservative. Blue Dogs support tax cuts, just not as wide or deep, and they are deficit hawks. They prioritize closing the deficit over tax cuts, and while I may not line up with that perspective, I still view them as allies in the fight against liberal tax-and-spend plans.
I have been meticulous in presenting facts and independent sources to back up my views. You have thrown around invectives and whining. Start backing up your claims or soon you will have less credibility than a Ron Paul supporter.
April 18th, 2007 at 12:30 pm
JF, No you Romneybots are masters are very carefully examining individual trees while being blinded as to the nature of the forest. I will refrain from speculating on why.
April 18th, 2007 at 12:31 pm
David,
You have an irrational hate of Romney. How much importance do you give national polling this far out? You seem to trust the national polling in both the general and primary matchups.
PS. perhaps you should look up “fascism” before you start throwing the term around.
April 18th, 2007 at 12:37 pm
Minnesota: I’ll just let you guys be on record that the national polling is irrelevant. The entire U.S. political profession is available to debate you.
OK, I made a liberalish use of “facism,” and I take it back. What I’m referring to is the Romneybot goon squad decending EN MASSE every time and obfuscating the real issues, and diluting any debate objective political observers might otherwise be able to have on this blog.
April 18th, 2007 at 12:43 pm
I have no desire to get involved in this mess, and anyone who has read my infrequent comments knows I don’t feel any great love for Mitt Romney, but I had to laugh at “Romneybot goon squad”.
April 18th, 2007 at 12:44 pm
Remind me again when I said national polling was irrelevant. If you wish to have a rational conversation try not to distort the truth. My words were “of limited value”. I am not JF and I will not simply be lumped together with the next person. I am not a member of any “goon squad” and it is statements like this that dilute “any debate objective political observers might otherwise be able to have on this blog.”
April 18th, 2007 at 12:47 pm
Wow, for the record, 2 Romneybots disagree to a small degree on a small point. Let the record reflect this! I’m in shock.
April 18th, 2007 at 12:48 pm
Are you guys suffering from some deferred maintenance?
April 18th, 2007 at 12:49 pm
Patrick: I understand. It took me a few weeks and a couple notable threads before it became clear to me.
April 18th, 2007 at 12:50 pm
I am not afraid to say they are irrelevant. The entire premise of the Gingrich and FDT entry into the race is premised on the idea that the current polls are irrelevant (after all, neither of these two is exactly dominating the field in the polls).
Larry Sabato has put this forward as well:
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200704/POL20070406b.html
If you had actually paid attention to the 2006 elections and the polling before that, you would know that Sabato was the most accurate political analyst out there, and almost exactly called the election’s results. But you weren’t paying attention then, and you aren’t paying attention now. You can’t be bothered with facts, you just ride the emotion wherever it takes you.
This isn’t productive. You place no value in truth, and I’m not challenged by your emotional outbursts. We would probably be better off not responding to each other in the future.
April 18th, 2007 at 12:51 pm
In fact, I started out on this blog being very respectful. I even took fellow Rudy supporter Luther to task a couple times for using sarcasm. It wasn’t until I understand what was going on with the Romneybots that I decided someone needed to call them out on it.
Can you imagine our party under the leadership of Romney, with all the brownshirts en masse trying to keep the rest of us in line?
April 18th, 2007 at 12:53 pm
JF: That was a very nice true. Ignored the forest. Like, 2006 wasn’t a GOP Presidential primary. Or the radically altered primary schedule of this cycle.
Re FDT and Newt, it is entirely relevant. It shows how much support an UNdeclared candidate receives. Now watch the jump when FDT announces. Rudy will tie with McCain and Romney will drop like a stone.
April 18th, 2007 at 12:55 pm
true=tree
April 18th, 2007 at 1:01 pm
You are not making any sense at all david. Nobody wishes to keep anybody in line per say. We want rational debate whereas you seem to like nothing more than directing slurs and personal attacks towards anybody associated with Romney.
Looking back your posts in 8, 27, 29, 30, 31, 35, 36, 41, 42, 45, 47, 50, 51, and 54 all involved sarcasm and insults without much substance. Perhaps you should take a long hard look at the way you approach the debate.
April 18th, 2007 at 1:12 pm
I invite anyone to look at #45-#53 and decide the source of rational arguments in this debate.
April 18th, 2007 at 1:12 pm
Dave,
McCain has very little cash on hand and his fundraising machine is collapsing.
Um, what? McCain’s online fundraising is up fourfold since his VMI speech. The reason his first quarter showing was so poor was because the McCain campaign had focused on intimate townhall gatherings instead of fundraisers. With the restructuring of his finance committee, he’s under a lot of pressure to have an amazing second quarter.
I don’t know about you, but I would rather start out slow and gain steam towards the end of the year than blow my load in the first quarter and struggle to match it for the remainder of the year. A lot of Romney’s donors have already maxed out for the primaries. And remember that McCain has almost twice as many individual donors then either Rudy or Romney. So I would hardly call that “collapsing.”
I also think that ranking Thompson ahead of McCain and Romney is crazy.
April 18th, 2007 at 1:16 pm
After Reading DaveG’s post and DaveB’s responses I think it is quite clear that there opinions of FDT are based on hope rather than an actual truth to the situation. I noticed in FDT remarks on Fred that not a wit was mentioned of Fred’s accomplishments or ability to actually run something. Rather a lot of fabled rhetoric of Fred’s ability to bring people together which I have never seen anywhere in all of FDT’s history.
April 18th, 2007 at 1:18 pm
LJ,
I agree, Especially ahead of McCain who out polls Thompson in every poll. There is isn’t a single thing Thompson has the up on McCain with, except Redstate love.
Not too mention since Thompson’s initial entry in the polls, he has not risen at all.
April 18th, 2007 at 1:39 pm
Wow I think that the “Draft Fred” crazies are the ones who aren’t making sense. It is possible that FDT could win the GOP nomination, but it would involve a perfect storm of circumstances. Thompson already got his initial bump and is significantly behind Rudy and McCain in the RCP average. This is all without any major attacks being launched outside the blogosphere.
Romney will do continue a slow climb because he will do very will in 2Q fundraising and debates and Rudy will slowly drop as social conservatives peel off and go to Thompson, McCain and Romney. I think it will be a 4-way race by Iowa with nobody above 30% or below 15% nationally. If it is that close it will come down to ground game in the pre-Feb. 5th states in which case McCain and Romney are the only two with a chance at winning. I really think that those early victories will vault the early winner to a landslide victory on Feb. 5th. Check out polling report to see the impact early primaries have on the national polls. Kerry was in single digits pre-Iowa but jumped to 50% overnight after his Iowa win.
April 18th, 2007 at 1:49 pm
dskinner: That wasn’t a GOP race.
Also, there’s a maybe-declared bounce, and an officially declared bounce. Remember Rudy?
April 18th, 2007 at 2:10 pm
I really don’t think you can expect more than a 10% bounce when he announces. That will put Thompson in the low 20s. After that he doesn’t have enough money, organization or experience to move himself any higher. Also being an official candidate will make him a target of the MSM which will undoubtedly hurt his numbers the same way each of the Big 3 have been hurt by MSM attacks.
In the end I think it will be a 4 way race to Iowa. In a race that close nationally the Iowa, NH, NV, and SC winner(s) will separate themselves from the losers by virtue of all the positive free media they will receive. If Thompson got his ground game going I think he could win, but the only way I see that happening is if McCain has to drop out in which case Thompson would inherit his organization. Thompson also would be the weakest candidate of the big 4. He doesn’t bring anything extra to the table in a year where exciting the base won’t win the nomination. He won’t win any non-Bush states and has no experience advantage over the Dems. Romney, McCain and Giuliani each bring in potential new states and have a huge experience advantage of the Dems.
The Kerry bounce had nothing to do with being a democrat. It was because he got unheard of amounts of free media while at the same time the previous front-runner (Dean) imploded on national TV. Most primary voters outside of the few early states don’t make up there mind until after the early states. That includes voters from both parties.
April 18th, 2007 at 2:20 pm
dskinner11: The early primary slingshot strategy has worked for many Dems. Meanwhile, the GOP always nominates its national frontrunner. This has been a well-known fact for a long time. (Of course, everything eventually changes and there are exceptions to rules.)
Yes, Fred will poll in the low 20s. So will all 4 big candidates. Won’t that be fascinating? Hopefully the fight won’t weaken the eventual nominee too much.
April 18th, 2007 at 2:21 pm
Actually, I suspect the RCP average will look more like this:
Rudy 24
Fred 21
McCain 17
Romney 8
April 18th, 2007 at 2:22 pm
It will be very exciting. I think our candidate won’t be hurt as long as we don’t buy into the MSM’s criticism of our candidates. Unfortunately that is what has been happening so far.
April 18th, 2007 at 5:27 pm
Thompson had a BIG DAY on the hill. Jason, you can’t say a candidate support has leveled off when he has yet to declare. Whether anyone here likes it or not, there will be a sizable boost with his announcement. Words from the Rupublicans are very excited, and he is going to get a lot of support from some big names. Don’t forget how many people have yet to announce there support for a candidate. And quite a few groups. Also, it looks like the Dems want to start a fight about gun control today. First off, I think its disgusting that anyone will make this tragic event into a political issue this soon after a tragedy. Secondly, its not good news for some candidates in conservative ranks. It’s not right, but thats a fact.
April 18th, 2007 at 5:29 pm
House GOP Gushes Over Thomspon Candidacy:
http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2007Apr18/0,4670,FredThompson2008,00.html
April 18th, 2007 at 5:43 pm
Thompson gets Effusive Welcome:
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/WeirdNews/2007/04/18/4057464-ap.html
April 19th, 2007 at 12:07 am
I’m sorry but has Fred Thompson done ANYTHING?! What’s the difference between him and Barack Obama? They both stand hardcore on their respective party’s principles, that’s it. I’m all for principles but I’m so tired of people not getting anything DONE!