Posted on 11/13/2007 5:36:31 PM PST by tompster76
Which is the same thing as saying 75% of the conservatives oppose Judy, and 80% of the conservatives oppose the Mitt wit. And you don't get elected in this country when that many conservatives walk on you.
He can’t. A person can spend his own money on his own campaign. But he can only give $2300 to Thompson.
If you are a millionare and want to support another candidate, you should announce your own presidential campaign, and then spend all your time pushing the issues of your favorite candidate, and then when you are done drop out and endorse them.
Thus is the way in the era of Campaign Finance Reform.
When the ‘front runner’ is < 30% there is no front runner - especially 60 days ahead of any votes.
Why does Thompson win the votes of the environmentalists? That’s the one that really sticks out to me.
By that argument 81% of the conservatives hate Thompson. (and it’s 79% for ROmney, not 80%).
Of course, I know that NOT being the first choice of conservatives is not the same as being OPPOSED by the conservatives, as you should as well.
Just pointing out the absurdity and end result of your argument.
More interesting on THAT breakout is that liberals OVERWHELMINGLY favor Guliani and Romney.
Might be a real small denominator, what with this being South Carolinian Republicans and all.
First off I did not use the word HATE you did, so if you hate someone it's your problem. Next I did not make an argument about anything, I pointed out that 20 and 25% results didn't mean much and that you could not win an election in this country when a large percentage of the conservatives walk because you, the candidate, are liberal rinos.
Hate/oppose, I didn’t mean to change the connotation, I meant hate in the sense of won’t vote for, which is what you suggest when you say they will walk.
Your rebuttal makes my point even more, because if you are saying that 20% means 80% will WALK, then with Thompson’s 19% it means 81% will walk.
My point, which you ignored, is that MORE conservatives picked Romney than Thompson, so if that is a sign of how many will WALK (which it isn’t), Thompson’s worse than Romney.
You equated 20% support with 80% opposition, which was an absurd statement. I illustrated that by noting that your own argument meanst Thompson has 81% opposition from conservatives, which is decidedly not true.
Of course, that was only 2% of the respondents. THompson got 11% of “democrats”, but that was also only 2% of the respondents.
It was only 1%. It was the only issue that Thompson won on. I was just curious what Thompson had said on the environment that would make environmentalists pick him over the others.
Maybe it’s global warming. After all, we can blame ANYTHING on global warming, or George Bush. :-)
Romney gets the female vote probably because he is considered more handsome and youthful than Thompson is.
Probably younger voters like Thompson because they seen him in movies and TV.
If Thompson was a lot younger and better communicator, he would be winning big.
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.