Skip to comments.(vanity) Why the smart money is on Duncan Hunter
Posted on 11/15/2007 3:43:17 AM PST by Kevmo
click here to read article
$1,000 burning a hole in my pocket? Not since Ive had children :P
***Same here. Pray for me also because my job is going off line right before Christmas. This could be a tough one for the kiddies.
-Club For Growth is a treacherous Libertarian organization who wants to sell American jobs to the lowest bidder.
-National Taxpayers Union gave Hunter As 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 Cs.
***Thanks for this response, it’s concise and thoughtful. Bookmark for later reference.
I define charisma as the ability to captivate people into following you. If Hunter didn’t lack that ability, he would be where Huckabee is now, plain and simple.
I know you guys all know it. It’s why so many Hunter supporters resort to browbeating people.
“Only its better than Freds.
Not according to the National Taxpayer’s Union, who consistently scored Thompson higher than Hunter.”
How much higher score did Thompson score then Hunter? How exactly does the NTU calculate this stuff anyways?
^^this is jibberish^^^
Thompson(R) gets an A at +3.1 billion spending, and Bill Richardson(D) gets an F at -1.6 billion spending. Huh? Duh? This makes absolutely no sense it is jibberish. How is this stuff calculated anyways?
Hunter gets B’s when there is no war, I’m happy, lalala. See i’m smiling.
This fiscal stuff is TOO complicated and involved for me OR YOU to make a gross conclusion about any candidate other then Democrats spend much more then Republicans.
By the way, I’ve been quite clear on what I am saying. I am not advocating a ‘cult of personality’. I am CLEARLY saying that charisma PLUS A RECORD TO RUN ON are the two things that a candidate needs to be successful.
Let’s look at why Hunter doesn’t have name recognition for a second. Huckabee didn’t have any name recognition before Ames. Why wasn’t Hunter able to do the same?
I agree with you, Pistolshot, that the NRTL endorsement is a boost for Fred. I only wish they would have endorsed Hunter. Maybe they’ll realize their error ;-)
Oh God, I’m sorry to hear that Kevmo! I will add you and your family to my prayers.
Club for Growths ratings ... it is actually a mark of fiscal responsibility to acknowledge that war has cost. Every single war we have ever fought has been accomplished by revenue enhancing features
***Hey, good post, Mogambo. Thanks for the healthy dialog. If you don’t get an answer from Hunterite (I have my hands full) I’ll ask more of Hunter’s Rangers to address it.
Has anyone pinged the Hunter list? I’m busier than a 1-armed paper-hanger.
IF they succeed in blocking him...
..I will write in his name on the ballot.
I am sick of the game playing, I am sick of the 'top tier' pretending they speak for me....(they don't)..
I am sick of the lies and the threats.
If Duncan doesn't make it, I am through with politics, because my own Republican Party has managed to instill distrust that few, IF ANY, are honorable and honest anymore.
I will turn my attentions to protecting my family against whatever comes.
Well said. Same here bump.
“By the way, Ive been quite clear on what I am saying. I am not advocating a cult of personality. I am CLEARLY saying that charisma PLUS A RECORD TO RUN ON are the two things that a candidate needs to be successful.
Lets look at why Hunter doesnt have name recognition for a second. Huckabee didnt have any name recognition before Ames. Why wasnt Hunter able to do the same?”
Probably because Huckabee is controversial. I’m not impressed by his speeches, I don’t understand how others are. Maybe its because Huckabee is one of the few Republicans who are liberal spenders then the “electability theory” kicks in.
This is me wondering out loud.
I am not trying to be disagreeable with you, obviously we are on the same page, but I frankly do question it and here's why.
Hunter is a fine man and would be a great President and he has a record of being pro life. The same could be said about Fred Thompson, right? So why would someone decide to impugn Freds credibility, not mine, on abortion and not inform us of what they want done.
Maybe I'm hot because one issue voters are so picky that they would trash someone pro life just because they think he isn't pro life in the right way. That makes so little sense there has to be another explanation.
The media is going to play games with all politicians, even the Democrats, though to a lesser degree than us(except they seem to be beating on Hildabeast now).
Again they will try and make them all look bad, focusing on the ones they see as the biggest threat. It is up to the candidate to smack that back and take a little control.
Hunter has to see the very weakness they exploited, that he appears to focused and narrow, then play out of that.
Huckabee is ‘controversial’? How? I like his speeches. It’s his record that I think is totally unacceptable.
My theory is that there are a small number of folks that are more predisposed to Hunter’s method of speaking, which is very cold and full of rattled off statistics, read off like a laundry list. The problem with this is that, while it may be pleasing to that small number of folks, it really doesn’t do much for the public at large.
Yes, the man has a good record. Yes, he’s right on just about every position he’s taken. It is unfortunate that he lacks the ability to excite enough people to rally around him. If he had that ability, he’d have the name recognition necessary to be a real contender.
Listen newbie, you need to read the congressional record to determine who spent what on what.
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 Robertsons 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.
***Another good point. But it may be too late, the cat’s out of the bag on this NRTL one.
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.
***I think we are right at the cusp, the threshold of whether credibility will be key in this election. There are so many republicans who want to go the lazy route and worship at the altar of name recognition because it’s less work. But they have not learned the lesson of aRINOld in Cahleforneeya, we are actually worse off with a RINO than with a democrat. If we do not see poll numbers for Rudy start to take a dive soon, your point will be moot.
Earthdweller (All reality is based on faith in something.)
See your own tagline!
Funny, I did not see Hunterite mention education in that statement. He said the NEA. Which you assumed to mean the National Ed. Association.
This anti-abortion group endorsement means nothing.
Would the Temperance movement be satisfied with letting the states decide it? NO! Before prohibition about half of the states already abolished alcohol.
When this anti-abortion group endorsed Mister Federalism Thompson then they are not very serious. (personally I don’t care that much about abortion, although I think partial birth abortion is barbairic. I’m just trying to make a point.)
If half of the states had abortion legalized and half of the states didn’t, then all someone would have to do is hop in their car and drive to a state which had abortion legal.
That and the little fact that all presidential candidates except McCain and Rudy scored perfect scores, just like Thompson.
I am beginning to think the pro life movement doesnt really want to end abortion.
***And we Duncanistas are called conspiracy theorists in the face of that kind of post? Maybe you’re just throwing it out to see if someone will react to it, I don’t know. But I have trouble believing that you honestly believe this.
Heck yes you should vote for Hunter in the Iowa caucus if you like him best. That’s how a candidate breaks out is a surprisingly good showing early.
“Funny, I did not see Hunterite mention education in that statement. He said the NEA. Which you assumed to mean the National Ed. Association.”
lol. THE NATIONAL EDUCATIONAL SOMETHING OR THE OTHER (TNESOTO) leave me alone.
Nice understatement. It’s been at 0.1 (dollars per share, not percent) since early July, not just “the last few weeks”.
***Thanks for the correction. I’ve only been following Intrade for the last few weeks, so I can’t tell how far back that goes, but that is the number to keep an eye on. It’s still 27778.
The volume looks to be total shares traded ever, not on a daily basis. Looking at the advanced graphing link, one can easily see that there has been no appreciable activity on the contract AT ALL since mid-October, and the trade price still remained constant at 0.1 even then.
***Sounds about right. The big problem with this contract is liquidity. People who buy it and want to go do something else with their money can’t sell it at even a modest profit. If there is a sudden injection of liquidity into this contract, we will see it hit a reasonable value, which I perceive to be around the same as what Hunter polls but that’s just my perception.
I do note, however, that there now appear to be more (by about 7 to 8 percent) shares available today at 0.1 (the minimum trading price) than there were a couple of days ago,
***How can you find that out? I don’t see how you get to that kind of screen. Here’s a snapshot of the current ask & bid:
which means interest in Hunter is actually fading on the market, and that people are trying to dump shares if anyone will buy them.
***Cool. Someone could make money on Hunter by supporting him. Double cool. Thanks for the post. I might want to ask you some more questions about Intrade in the future.
That is one of the saddest graphs I’ve ever seen.
You meant the education association? Oh well, he may not be able to eliminate that turd, but here is there rating for him in 2005/2006:
National Education Association
CA___U.S. House___52____Duncan Hunter____Republican: 0
I too am trying to make a difference a POSITIVE difference. And as far as I am concerned, Duncan Hunter, while a good man, and acceptable to me as a nominee, is far from the most conservative candidate in the field, and he is a terrible campaigner. He is going absolutely nowhere.
***Hunter is slowly, slowly rising in the polls and Fred is rapidly declining in the polls. Hunter has stayed at 0.1 at Intrade while Thompson has lost 30 freeping points over there. Thompson is the terrible campaigner. If our guy had that kind of resources he’d be kicking around the tootyfruit. Instead we see Thompson picking on 2nd tier Huckabee as a “Prolife liberal”. It’s time for Thompson to drop and give Hunter a chance.
The same thing is true of another man I respect and admire, Tom Tancredo.
***I have not been following Tancredo. I would hope that when he drops he gives his support to Hunter, which seems obvious to me but I’ve seen so many obvious things go the opposite way lately that I wonder if this is still the GOP.
The sooner these men drop out and endorse someone with a chance of winning, the greater their influence will actually be in the party and in the race.
***The sooner Thompson drops out due to his squandering of campaign resources and exposure, the better for the real rock-ribbed conservative in the race, and for conservatives in the party.
Now, Id like to ask you, but I dont think you would like to answer, and I respect that, but Im curious. If Tancredo and Hunter should both drop out, who from among the remaining field whould you think they would or should endorse?
***I would vote for Thompson. And if Thompson drops out or gets a phone call from his doctor about cancer and makes a family decision, who would you think?
>I see this as a “practice run” for him. He’ll be a real contender down the road.
This is no practice run! He is a real contender today! This is a do it now or forget about it, because there will be no second chance for a traditional conservative in the North American Union. There are no laurels to rest upon! If we miss electing Duncan Hunter in 08, we will only have ourselves to blame for the consequences!
Duncan wants to abolish the NEA anyways.
***Really? That will piss off some liberals. Isn’t the NEA a private organization?
You may as well ask if Genghi had ever been Khan. Remember that the formation of the Republican party was a revolution even greater than the one which brought our independence.
***I wouldn’t agree with that. But it’s an interesting statement. How would you quantify or verify it? By the number of dead? I think the Revolutionary war had ~100k??? dead Americans, and the Civil War had ~500k dead Americans and abortion has seen ~50M dead Americans since RoeVWade.
Do we have that now?
***I don’t know. Dobson is saying he would go 3rd party if tootyfruityrudy is nominated, but he has not endorsed a candidate. I cannot hide my disappointment in this man whom I admire. We could have a revolution but I doubt it. While our soldiers are at war, America is at the mall.
40 to 1 for Hunter to win the WH? I like those odds. ....a lot better than the Cleveland Browns to win the Super Bowl (also around 40 - 1).
***No, it’s 40 to 1 for Thompson to win the White House. It’s 40 to 1 for Hunter to hit $4 on Intrade, and he’s polling 4% now. Those are pretty good odds.
If you want to go for Hunter to win the whole shebang, he’s still stuck in the field and those odds are 500 to 1. If you like 40 to 1 odds for Hunter to win the White House, I just made your day. If you win you gotta buy me a dinner. Think about it $100 would get you $50,000. (Minus the cost of a dinner & commissions & whatnot)
Field (any other candidate) to win 2008 US Presidential Election M 0.2 0.4 0.2 4916 0
Fred Thompson to win 2008 US Presidential Election M 2.5 2.6 2.5 16606 0
Oh, Kevmo. You are right. “While our soldiers are at war,
America is at the mall”. Almost anyone educated after the early 60’s are absolutely clueless!
I wasn’t talking about the war, I was talking about the societal revolution which made abolition such a moral imperative that the new party prospered, and dominated politics from 1856 to the 1880s.
Kevmo: if Hunter gets to 4% on Intrade, reflecting his current polling status
Kevkrom: You’re still incorrectly conflating support numbers with probabilities. Even if the obvious 4% outlier were accurate, Hunter still has an approximately zero chance of winning the nomination, as is reflected in his stagnant and marginal “price” on Intrade.
***Is that considered an invalid reasoning, that a candidate’s price on Intrade would somehow reflect his polling numbers, or at least be affected by them? If so, prove it. When you say “Hunter still has”, you’re repeating exactly what I say when I say that Hunter is at 0.1% on Intrade, you add nothing whatsoever of value to the statement except a revealed intent to show that Hunter in a bad light. And I want to show him in a good light.
If you had $1k and could choose 2 futures in PigBellies, both offering a 40-to-1 payout and OptionA pays out in a few weeks and OptionB pays out in a year. OptionA would pay out in a few weeks when Intrade reflects the current polling numbers or somesuch data about pigbellies, and OptionB would pay only if Pigbellies are one of the most expensive commodities in the market one year from now (or choose a similar suitable outcome). Option B has gone down by 30 points due to fundamentals and Option A has stayed static and low due to fundamentals. Which is a better option? Option A is, and Duncan Hunter is the better option.
Kevmo: The fact that the media hates true conservatives trumps that underdog thing.
rovian_storm: You need charisma AND the record to back it up. ...Whether you have charisma and a crappy record or a great record and no charisma, youre still missing 50% of what you need to close the deal.
Think what you want about underdogs, but the media doesnt pay attention to Hunter because he gives them no reason to.
***How can we verify this one way or the other? You have your opinion and I have mine. How can you quantify media bias? When Hunter came in 2nd place in the Spartanburg straw poll, the media guy was so flustered because he obviously had been told that Hunter had no chance. We keep hearing that, and yet he’s still around and the other conservative in the race has been messing up on his campaign. Remember how Bill Sali won his race: by counting on the media to go out of their way to huff & puff against his conservative credentials and claim that he was down by 20 points just before the election which he won handily. Similarly in liberal Cahleefornya, proposition 187 won overwhelmingly when the media jumped the shark and was calling people who would vote for it racist. Americans know when the media is so liberal that it’s ridiculous, and that would help a truly rock-ribbed conservative candidate like Hunter. Going for the mush middle means Hildebeast wins.
Both links are more than specific. Try reading them. And for the 2nd one, be sure to note the $5 billion price tag.
I would indeed expect correlation, but not proportionally so. If Candidate A is polling at 80% and Candidate B is polling 20%, there's no way anyone in their right mind thinks that Candidate B has a 20% shot of winning; the "Candidate B" contract would likely receive no bidders even at a trivial price because the candidate has no reasonable chance of ever winning, and hence paying off.
Same thing here -- a short-term rise in the polls still doesn't imply that anything has fundamentally changed in terms of the probability of Hunter winning. He's still no better than seventh, which means he not only has to dramatically improve his own standing, he has to surpass six other candidates, and has shown no signs of being able to do so. Therefore, no one is biting on the contract because there is no expectation of the value of the contract rising in the foreseeable future.
If you think they're wrong, then by all means buy up all the 0.1 price contracts you can.
Finally, this far out, note that this type of market is far more volatile than measures of actual support. Short-term trends are dramatically over-represented in perception of long-term probabilities. As the window shortens, prices will stabilize closer to "reality".
i like Hunter, I even sent him some money a month or so ago but I also like Fred. I really don’t see much different in the two besides their life story.
I have been moving toward Fred since the debates.
***Then you have made your rational choice and that is all I would ask. It seems to me that the poll numbers and Intrade data are trending in the opposite of your conclusion about Fred. To be overtly clear, I will vote for Fred if he’s the nominee, but I really do think Hunter is the better man. It would be so cool to see a set of side-by-side debates, winner take all. Of course that won’t happen.
I'm going from memory. There were five hundred ninety... something shares available at 0.1 the last time I checked, and today there are 639. Not remembering the actual value, I had a somewhat "fuzzy" answer of about 7-8%.
No, this isn’t an opinion. It is a FACT that the MOST INFLUENTIAL REPUBLICAN STRAW POLL is the Ames poll. You comparing it to other, lesser, straw polls is disingenuous.
Can you cite for me the historical significance of the Spartanburg straw poll? I’m certainly not aware of any.
Even if they were the same, why didn’t Hunter have similar performance where it mattered? Huckabee is a contender now, solely because of his performance in the Ames straw poll. Why didn’t Hunter do what Huckabee did?
How are Hunter’s numbers in SC again, speaking of Spartanburg?
Respectfully, that's not the issue (IMO)
You look at Hunter and see Reagan. I look at him, and Tancredo, and see Goldwater.
I believe the country would have been much better off if Goldwater had been elected in 1964. But I believe it was an act of massive hubris and irresponsibility to nominate him under the circumstances which obtained in 1964.
The huge legislative majorities which Johnson garnered in the 1964 election caused damage to the nation from which we have yet to recover (if we ever do).
I am not looking for "the most conservative candidate" BECAUSE I believe that a Hillary Clinton blowout, with LBJ-sized legislative majorities, will be the result.
I understand that you and many others do not share that opinion.
But it's an opinion, based on recent electoral data. It's not a lifestyle choice, or an expression of my own personal desires.
So, the way I look at it, it's not marching off a cliff - it's trying to keep you all from driving the nation off a cliff.
The primaries should give us a lot of useful information about the state of the electorate.
That's why, as they say, they play the games.
You gotta deal, Kevmo. 500 to 1 is an absolute steal.
Im not looking to vote for someone to throw their shirt off and show me their boobs, im voting for someones record.
***Dang, that would get the vote if it were someone like Ann Coulter!
We have to win over the middle, and they do not want to be preached to, they want to be sold. Duncan is a great conservative preacher, but his sales skills need refining.
***Thanks for the elaboration, I appreciate it. I think Hunter CAN win over the middle with his immigration and anti-fleecetrading policies, which are hot button items across the board with middle class republicans and democrats. It doesn’t even need to be a hard sell, he just needs the exposure.
Another thing, while I know he has put out statements on his web site and such on a number of issues, he has to actually play on all those issues publicly as much as possible.
***He is. It’s just a lot slower than all of us would have preferred. Thompson’s entry into the race took the wind out of his sails. Thompson’s tanking should put the wind right back in.
Also I have said often that this is a political game and after 27 years in the house Duncan has not really stood out.
***I don’t buy it. I have seen no evidence one way or the other that this is important to mainstream America. I never heard of Dan Quayle before he was chosen as VP. The PROCESS itself generates name recognition. That’s one reason why character is more important than name recognition.
It is past the time that most politicians who end up as national players have broken out. I am told it is because he “does not bow down” or “does not play politics”.
***I am not told that. So we need to find an objective middle ground where what you say is supported and factually accepted by guys like me. I do not know how to do it.
Well guess what, the game the left and the middle have brought us is politics, so to win it we have to be in it. Otherwise we are just those whiny folks over on the fringe arguing with the wind.
***This paragraph doesn’t make sense.
As far as evidence, it is all simple observation. Where has he been the past 27 years, why has he not gained more notoriety and where is he in the polls after a year of being in the race.
***He was doing just fine until Thompson showed up. Thompson had his chance and he squandered it. If Thompson had not entered the race, Hunter would be in the top tier right now.
Blame the press or whatever, but a politician is responsible for his own destiny as much as anyone.
***It is so much like the aRINOld/McClintock discourse that I would hope some freepers would take notice. McClintock was doing just fine until aRINOld showed up with his obviously superior name recognition. I can’t say I like how that went, but that’s the way politics works. We, however, are supposed to be conservatives posting on a conservative website (NOT a GOP website) and we should have all learned the lesson. Many have not. Thompson had his day in the sun and the numbers are in — he has squandered his lead. Let’s learn what we should have learned and get behind Hunter for the good of our party.
To try and pass it off as some conspiracy or the like does him and his efforts a disservice, because it grants a scapegoat, not a solution, which in the end is what you are after, getting it fixed and moving up to victory.
***When I see the conspiracy theories I’m reminded of how frustrated we all felt in 1997 and 1998 when I first joined FR. There were a lot of Conspiracy Theories in those days. They were scary, kooky, fun and I didn’t take most of them seriously. I think Conspiracy Theories are the smoke that rises from the fire of frustration. We saw a lot of funny ones from DUmmy Funnies because the DUers were frustrated. It is a simple sign of frustration.
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.