The GOP horserace

After a brief bout of Fredmania, I'm falling away reasons you specified. Thompson's a nice, charismatic guy, but not a lot of there there. But that's no hurdle for the Vice-Presidency. Oddly enough. Rudy/Fred looks like a real possibility.

This poll shows such a cratering for Romney for no apparent reason (no gaffes, no controversies) that it has to be an abberration.

As to your question, there's no way Huckabee (much less Paul) can pull this out, barring a whole lotta scandals taking down multiple frontrunners. A shame, too--Huckabee has substance and executive experience.

Oh, and I got "Huckabee 70%" on the quiz, FWIW.

I remain baffled at you continued dismissal of Thompson. I'm not supporter of him in particular (I would be happy with Huckabee, Romney or Thompson) but he is clearly a good campaigner and his numbers remain strong since the announcement though they have enjoyed a big boost either.

The Rasmussen numbers actually do show a pretty big Thompson bounce. Thompson leads Rudy in that poll 28% to 19%.

Actually they seem to differ quite a bit from Gallup's numbers.

Daily tracking:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_2008__1/daily_presidential_tracking_polling_history

Weekly:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_2008__1/weekly_presidential_tracking_polling_history

If Rudy gets the nod, what would he and Hilary debate about? What is the difference between them? Well, I don't think Hilary has ever crossed dressed and she is still on her first marriage. But other than that.......I fell for that "hero of 9/11" stuff until I really started looking into it. Rudy is, like Hilary, another welfare-warfare state facist who wants to control people's lives and tell them what to do. He has some very unsavory associates as well (so does Hilary). At least, I think Hilary does in some dim way, understand the concept of "blowback". Rudy claimed in the first Republican debate not to have even heard of it. That means he hasn't read the 9/11 Commission Report. He was too busy making speeches at 200K a pop or whatever. Mr. 9/11 hasn't even read the 9/11 report.

Anybody but Rudy! I'd rather vote for a pro choice Democrat than a pro choice Republican and I've been a Republican all my life. I don't want them to think there's no consequence for abandoning principle under the idea that "where else would the pro lifers go?". How about stay home or write in Ron Paul?

I liked Ron Paul 4 years ago when no one had ever heard of him. When he first decided to run, my support was a sort of quixotic, get the message out and make a principled stand thing, but I didn't think he had a snowball's chance in hell. I still think him quite a long shot but Bill Clinton was polling pretty low among Democrat primary voters in 1991....no one had heard of Jimmy Carter in 1975....he has at least as good a chance as Huckabee and maybe even Romney. If young people actually voted at the rate of older people, his chances would be much better. I sort of look at him as the Goldwater of 2008. Goldwater didn't win but he ignited a movement that eventually led to Reagan being elected.

It's funny all these guys are always trying to be the new Ronald Reagan. Ron Paul was one of the first in Congress to support Reagan. And when it came to getting involved overseas, Reagan knew how to use proxies and he knew when to hold 'em and when to fold 'em. I can't imagine Reagan being sucked into something as stupid as invading Iraq.

Well, it really doesn't matter much, the Democrats are going to clean the Republicans' clocks next year. Might as well get used to another round of Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton. It will at least be amusing to see Bill Clinton in the role of "First Gentleman".

Everyone compares Romney to Kerry because of his supposed "flip-flops." But you mark my words, what will really make him similar is he primaries strategy. Kerry, too, was polling low nationally, took Iowa and NH and bam. Watch Romney do the same thing.

Well, I don't think Hilary has ever crossed dressed...

You haven't seen any pictures of Hillary from the sixties, I guess. That's de facto cross-dressing; no bra and legs need a mow. But she blended in back then, I'll admit. Plus I feel I should point out that remaining married to someone is no great feat when you don't have to share an address.

Just so. Even in the throes of Alzheimer's, Reagan wouldn't have been stupid enough to invade Iraq. For that level of idiocy, there's only one man. LOL! Gosh do I miss Ronaldus Magnus. A man history is vindicating as a great President and person of depth. (I'm serious, by the way.)

Today's date: Sep. 20, 2007. Primaries: February 2008 (or as early as January?) and later. General election: November 2008. It's fun to talk about all this, but so very much can happen between today and the primaries and then the general election. These campaigns are going to take all kinds of twists and turns, and it's much too early to rule anyone out. Everyone had McCain's goose as cooked several weeks ago, but he's hanging in. Bill Clinton, I believe, was considered down for the count at one point. So, #1, I'm not so sure all is lost for Huckabee or Paul, and I'm not so sure Giuliani is inevitable. There's a lot of us fundies in the grassroots.

#2: I'm not so sure that 2008 will be a disaster for Republicans -- again, we're a long way out. I think the 2006 disaster wasn't about Iraq so much; it was about Mark Foley's pederast nature and George Allen's "Macaca Moment," as well as general dissatisfaction with Republican fiscal governance. I'm open to being corrected here, but which Senate or House races can we reasonably demonstrate were won by Democrats because of the Iraq issue?

I'm thinking that the Republican candidate has a chance if he presents himself convincingly as a fiscal conservative and one who would appoint conservative judges, especially when the GOP starts rolling the attack ads out re: taxes and judges. I also think Democrats have a way of shooting themselves in the foot; I mean, y'all couldn't beat Bush *twice*? Whatever you think of the court issues in 2000, the whole court thing could have been avoided with a decisive victory by Gore. In 2004, after four years of Bush's gaffes and incompetence, John Kerry, an intelligent, military man, couldn't win either. What makes us so certain that Hillary or Obama would clean up on a GOP candidate, any of which will be more articulate, intelligent, charismatic and photogenic than the current POTUS?

Just sayin'. I could certainly be wrong. But I'm curious what others think. As far as my preferences, I'm for Huckabee at this point, and really hope I don't have to make a choice between Hillary and Rudy.

I remember some wag's line from the last time Kucinich was running: the only way he'd get the nomination was if all the candidates at the debate died because of being served tainted ham sandwiches; he would have survived because he's a vegetarian. (Of course, at that time Lieberman was still a Democrat and presumably wouldn't have partaken of the ham, either.) I'm not sure what the silver bullet like that is that could leave Paul as the last one standing this time.