Posted on 11/15/2007 3:43:17 AM PST by Kevmo
Why the smart money is on Duncan Hunter
OK, so you’ve got a thousand dollars burning a hole in your pocket and you want to make a statement with it at the same time as getting 40X return on your “investment”, you want $40,000 for that $1000 bet, like Hillary did in her Pig Belly futures or whatever it was. You’re going to decide between putting it down on Hunter or Thompson over at Intrade because these are the 2 most conservative candidates in the race.
https://www.intrade.com/
Which one do you choose?
Let’s start with the guy who has 3 balls. He’s got courage in spades. He’s engaged enemy soldiers in Viet Nam when he was a LRRP ranger and he got a Bronze Star for his real bravery. His friend and supporter also has 3 balls, the guy who we all know as “the man who broke the sound barrier”, Chuck Yeager. While they’re campaigning in Iowa, all you have to do is ask Chuck to tell the story about how he and Bob Hoover were in Russia and got that chance to fly a YAK and Bob took it up gently and respectfully and flew it straight & level into the horizon… and then returned over the viewing stand flying upside down and basically causing the Russians to pee in their pants. After hearing this story or one of a million others, Hunter will take the podium and leverage that emotional courage language that Americans love, and they’ll all look at each other & nod, saying, “this is the guy who should be my president”.
Now let’s cover the guy who played a soldier in the movies. He was quite convincing when he was telling Jack Ryan of the CIA that he wouldn’t be able to get to the submarine because it involved flying in a helicopter, and the last time Jack was in a helicopter he spent 3 months recovering from the accident. It’s interesting and fun entertainment, but it is not real. While he and his friend are campaigning in Iowa, he will need to build his own emotional leverage with the audience, and this is not a Hollywood script.
Right now over at Intrade, Thompson futures contracts are trading at about 6%. There was a time when he had the lead and was trading at 35%, but over the last few weeks he has lost about 30 points. He had the spotlight shining on him as the most conservative guy with the best name recognition, while thousands of his supporters were crossing their fingers during the debates hoping he wouldn’t screw up.
https://www.intrade.com/jsp/intrade/contractSearch/
Hunter futures contracts are at 0.1%. Over the last few weeks they have remained at 0.1%, with the volume staying put at 27778. That is the number to watch. All it takes is for that number to start moving. It means someone is buying Hunter’s contract at a very low price. Within a few weeks, that number will be history. Hunter has been campaigning on a shoestring budget and slowly gaining recognition in the polls, recently just coming in at 4%.
http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/28889/republicans_2008_giuliani_28_thompson_19
All he needs is one more percent. Hunter needs to get to 5% in the coming weeks in order to be invited to the Iowa debate by our friends at the Iowa GOP.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1922644/posts
At that point, everyone will know he’s at 5% in the polls. His futures contracts at Intrade, if they’re still at 0.1, will have relentless upward pressure from bargain hunters, but by then it will be too late to buy in at that price.
Here’s where the decision gets made, why the smart money is on Duncan Hunter rather than Thompson. In order to get 40X return by investing in Thompson, you would have to buy his contract to win the whole kit & caboodle, the presidency, which is now trading at 2.5.
2008.PRES.THOMPSON(F)
Fred Thompson to win 2008 US Presidential Election
At $6, you could not get 40X return on the Fred.Nominee contract. If you bought it at $5, the best you could get is 20X return.
2008.GOP.NOM.THOMPSON(F)
Fred Thompson to be the Republican Presidential Nominee in 2008
The forum at Intrade seems to waver between those who think Fred’s campaign is imploding and those who think it will rebound. But they have freewheeling discussions about the why and how that we have been missing here on Free Republic.
https://bb.intrade.com/intradeForum/posts/list/1805.page
So your decision comes down to this: Is it more likely that Hunter will get 1% more exposure in national polls, and move up to 4 or 5% at Intrade or is it more likely that Thompson will win the presidency outright? Remember, this is the guy who had the spotlight shined on him as the conservative golden boy and lost 30 points at Intrade, and has been losing ground in the polls lately.
While his supporters are crossing their fingers hoping he doesn’t screw up, Hunter’s supporters are folding their hands in prayer hoping that he’ll just be himself.
Over the last few days, I’ve seen a couple of posts like this
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1925179/posts?page=284#284
According to Polls, Fred Thompson Foundering
Posted by Kevmo to SergeiRachmaninov On News/Activism 11/13/2007 1:51:29 PM PST · 284 of 536
It is a bitter time for those who have invested all their hopes with Fred and repressed all doubts. ...Still it is not much fun when you have chosen your candidate, put him on a pedestal, and gone to war for him, and then reality starts to batter you. I’ve already trod the path from hopeful about Fred, to disappointed, to angry in my disappointment. I really should do better at being gentle to those who are somewhere else along on that path.
***That is some amazing candor. I honestly do think that Hunter will not disappoint you in that way. He may not win the nomination due to lack of name recognition, but he is doing what he can about that. His character stands head & shoulders above the others in the race.
That is the emotional language of someone who has felt betrayed by his candidate. But the Hunter followers do not feel betrayed, they have circled the wagons and they are coming out fighting. That’s where you put your money down, where there is fight to the inner core, and the guy they’re fighting for is genuine.
All it takes is that one or two Freepers will copy this article and send it to their wealthy friend who did so well in the stock market during the dotcom boom, or won a thousand bucks at a beer drinking tournament or whatever. Then we’ll start to see that 27778 number trickle, then it will flood through relentlessly. And that will serve as a metaphor for the entire republican campaign, what has been a trickle of support will soon break through the floodgates in myriads of ways, whether it’s our grandmother sending in the $25 check to Hunter’s campaign
http://www.gohunter08.com
or Iowans asking if they could put up a sign on their front lawn or our grandchild folding her hands in prayer for this courageous man.
And then we’ll see Hunter smile.
“Face it. The NRTL endorsement is one of the biggest chips to have on your side of the table in this high stakes game.
Next for Fred will be the NRA endorsement, with it’s 6-7 MILLION members. And that will be a very big chip, indeed.”
Sorry, lots of us prolifers have been questioning the NRTL’s tactics for many years-long before this election.
Three members of my household belong to the NRA. We’re not supporting Thompson because his record does not match his platitudes.
Official endorsements do not translate into automatic votes.
$1000??? Heck, not even $10 stays in my pocket with the kid around.
-Club For Growth is a treacherous Libertarian organization who wants to sell American jobs to the lowest bidder.
-National Taxpayers Union gave Hunter A’s before the Iraq war. Would you prefer Hunter join with the Democrats and stop funding the Iraq war? Thats what ruined Hunters record and dropped it from an A to a C, because he is part of the House Armed Services Committee, and so therefore, after 2001 he started receiving C’s.
Hey Kev, any trading going on with that new character, Cap Fendig?
LOL, I hear that!
I beg to differ. National orginzations throwing their substaintial weight and finances behind a candidate, do make a difference. It means volunteers to go door to door, it means monies for ads, mailings, and a host of other support only a vast organization can accomplish and support.
This is the basic difference between individual endorsements and organizational ones.
You and your family can dismiss that endorsement, but your view may not reflect the view of the entire membership. Granted, not every one will be pleased by any endorsement of a candidate that is not for 'their' guy, but the recognition by the majority, NATIONWIDE of that support pays off in the long run.
I get the ‘sad puppy-eyed’ look and I’m finished.
I get ganged up on with them working as some organized force. It scares me how they can plot together and negotiate. It is like living with a bunch of lawyers. I don’t know where they get it from.
In other words a solid pro life candidate, according to his voting record, thinks the first step to abolishing abortion is to make it a states issue therefore making it easier to abolish on the state level is unacceptable. I guess the reason he would be unacceptable is because as someone else quoted on FR "his goal is good but his heart isn't in the right place" or some such nonsense.
Are you a Huck supporter? The reason I ask is because Huck is just as pro life as Fred yet he is a big spender who believes in his heart that government should rule too many aspects of Americans lives, Fred wants gov't out of our lives.
just because someone is pro life doesn't make them a conservative.
“National orginzations throwing their substaintial weight and finances behind a candidate, do make a difference. It means volunteers to go door to door, it means monies for ads, mailings, and a host of other support only a vast organization can accomplish and support.”
I realize that this is the hope of official endorsements, but I will repeat to you that there are many other prolife organizations who represent prolifers as well, and many of us have watched prolife efforts undermined by the NRTL.
In essence, every organization is subject to an increased amount of scrutiny because of widespread mistrust. While it might be nice to get an official endorsement from these organizations, the organizations risk losing members by endorsing candidates who do not adequately reflect their articulated mission-especially when candidates with stronger records are ignored.
Look at Pat Robertson’s endorsement of Rudy. Do you think everyone watching the 700 Club is gonna support Rudy because of it? More likely, they are scratching their heads, trying to figure out what kind of deal was made.
Tons of essays and editorials have already flown through the info. circuits questioning that.
I believe credibility will be key in this election. If people cannot support their current positions with their past records, words, and deeds, they will not be seen as credible.
Mine, would make a good lawyer, but she has other plans, thank God.
You answered your own question:
“National Taxpayers Union has not given him an “A” rating since early 1990s. He has gotten consistent “C” ratings since 2000. He is a tax raiser.”
Error: it was 2002 when Hunter went from A’s to C’s, right when War on Common sense started.
I’m kind of an isolationist myself, so you are preaching to the choir. Even Duncan Hunter isn’t Conservative enough for me. But I am going to give him the benefit of the doubt, especially relative to other mooshy moderate candidates.
http://www.ntu.org/main/components/ratescongress/details_all_years.php3?house_id=68
2006 Grade: B
2005 Grade: C+
2004 Grade: C+
2003 Grade: C
2002 Grade: C
2001 Grade: B+
2000 Grade: B
1999 Grade: B-
1998 Grade: B+
1997 Grade: B-
1996 Grade: B-
1995 Grade: B
1994 Grade: B
1993 Grade: A
1992 Grade: B
This is something Code Pink would punish Hunter for, spending more money in wartime. I think it is distasteful.
No, for me, having a prolife record, not just a new prolife position, is a critical, necessary, elimination factor.
Anybody who thinks killing babies is “private” is as unqualified to be president as someone who thinks the killing of the elderly, the disabled, the blue-eyed, or brown-skinned, or any other already born human beings, is “private.”
We have foundational unalienable natural rights- chief among them is the right to life.
No, saying that a foundational right can be deffered back to the states is not only a cowardly copout, but it is an unconstitutional authorization of the death warrants for millions of innocent human beings.
Once I am convinced the person is truly prolife, and I have eliminated the wild cards from the deck, I look at the records and positions of the remaining candidates.
“No, for me, having a prolife record, not just a new prolife position, is a critical, necessary, elimination factor.”
That probably should say “qualification” factor. It qualifies prolife candidates, and eiminates the others.
Wow thats a brilliant position. Instead of having perhaps 25 states outlaw abortion outright, saving the lives of millions, you are content on keeping RvW in tact. How do you think abortion will be outlawed and how do you think a President can even do that?I am beginning to think the pro life movement doesn’t really want to end abortion. Perhaps its become too big of a money making industry for them too.
I hope mine have other plans as well.
Only here for a sec but have you seen any of Fred's anti-gun senate bills?
Lautenberg Domestic Confiscation gun ban
On September 12, 1996, the Senate passed the Lautenberg gun ban as an amendment to the Treasury-Postal appropriations bill (H.R. 3756). The Lautenberg Domestic Confiscation Gun Ban disarms gun owners for small (misdemeanor) offenses in the home — “offenses” as slight as spanking a child or grabbing a spouse. This lifetime ban, in certain cases, can even be imposed without a trial by jury. It is also retroactive, so it does not matter if the offense occurred 20 years ago. Thompson voted in favor of the amendment.
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.