Free Republic

Will check online tomorrow, but perhaps after caucus... I need to prepare to speak on behalf of Hunter.

Is that the short list from the principles or your own criteria? If your own, perhaps some principles or criteria is missing from my post that you’d care to suggest.

I know that others use different principles for picking candidates — and I’d like to understand them even if I don’t necessarily agree.

Also, would the principles you used in picking Fred allow you to reliably pick conservative candidates for other positions? E.g. would they be of benefit to share :-)

That last bit was a joke, in case you couldn’t tell...

I don't know.. I've actually convinced a few of Fred supporters to caucus for Duncan Hunter... The lack of fire in the belly is contagious to his supporters (and I don't apologize for saying it -- my explanation for why is best found at: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1947470/posts ).

Meanwhile, the fact that Duncan Hunter is practically unknown spills over to me and lets me be as stealthy a ninja :-)

I think you misunderstand the point of the post. The point is to enumerate some principles (and the reasoning behind them) for reliably identifying candidates who would be good to support and who would not. The fact that I list a candidate who has satisfied the principles is partially for an example, and partially because I find it impressive that he has satisfied such principles. Now, ask yourself, would those principles be good to apply to a governor, or a representative, or senator? I believe so, that they are a useful filter for conservative voters to use when trying to find a good candidate.

I’m guessing you disagree with one or more of the principles, or perhaps find some additional principles are warranted. Feel free to make suggestions (constructive, please).

Is the first choice not acceptable? :-)

Seriously, I have a distant second (who fails in at least one of the criteria), but I see no need to mention who that is.

How about you, does applying the principles help in weeding out good and bad candidates? If so, what is your short list? Are there principles that are missing?

Perhaps by 2020, or even 2012 you may be right. Certainly I see the sore losers of the Clinton Campaign argue that. Remember also though that we served up Kerry, and downed Dean — someone thought Dean would have been an easier win, but I think he would have excited his base more than Mr. Lurch...

I’m not sure of a better model, to be honest. But consider the advantage of having 2 states up front: candidates with less money can afford to campaign. It gives us more choice. And not every candidate has gobs of money...

If it were to be another state, I think you’d want it to be one that has a wide variety of libs and conservatives in good proportion. NY or CA would be bad because the state leans so terribly liberal, even on the Republican side...

Some place like Utah or Wyoming would be bad for the converse reason. Are there other states that have a good mix? The so-called battleground states are the best, I would expect....

Actually, Iowa has a great deal of diversity, more than you’d expect. We’ve got all sorts of conservatives, all sorts of liberals, all sorts of nationalities. The other thing (aside from the Ethanol issue, which I’m happy to say that my candidate, Duncan Hunter, has not gone along with) is that we do take the job very seriously.

The only things I’d change though: Have the caucus available to more hours ... e.g. have multiple ones throughout the day for people with work schedules that won’t allow evening voting.

I believe it varies per precinct, and depends on the amount of people. It can be as simple as counting a show of hands. It can be a paper ballot as well.

Thanks for the welcome.

I signed up late New Years Eve...

Btw — does anyone have additional questions for making it better? Obviously not a “scientific” test, but still useful, I thought.

Yes sir, hanging out in Iowa.

I predict the following in the political realm:
* Huckabee will tank shortly after his narrow loss in Iowa. He may make it to South Carolina. The religious right who supported him will be despondent.
* Thompson will drop out after South Carolina (or perhaps slightly before). The federalists who supported him will be despondent.
* McCain will drop out after South Carolina, unless he finds a big sugar daddy...
* Guiliani will get big donations from NY and CA and stay in the race.
* Romney will continue to get big donations from his brethren.
* The religious right will be looking for someone to take their flag, and be split 3 ways: Hunter, Keyes, and no-one.
* The federalists will be looking for a consistent conservative will look at Keyes and Hunter of them, and dismiss Keyes because he seems so shrill. Then the Federalists will look at Hunter or Romney, and many will look at Romney and say he will win, so will vote for him. The rest will support Hunter or not care.
* If McCain drops out, Guiliani and Romney will be neck and neck. Hunter will continue his slow and steady progress.
* There will be much bad blood between the Romney and Guiliani supporters (just like there was between Romney and Huckabee supporters), and at the conventions Hunter will emerge as the Republican Nominee.

Meanwhile, on the dark side of the planet:
* Barack defeats Hillary in Iowa. East coast liberals immediately call for Iowa to no longer be first caucus in the nation (just like they called for an end to the electoral system when Al Gore lost)
* Dodd or Biden makes a surprisingly strong 4th place finish, very close to what Edwards gets in 3rd place. Whichever this one is, his campaign is invigorated.
* Edwards campaign tanks after Iowa. He was supposed to do better than a narrow 3rd place victory.
* Kucinich gets upgraded by the aliens, and is given hypnotic powers. He makes a third party run with both Ron Paul and Ralph Nader as his running mates. [I’m allowed a little humor in my predictions, right?]
* New Hampshire turns real dirty, and Hillary’s machine lets loose on Barach in a desperate ploy to not lose. Meanwhile, Bill Clinton talks about how Iowa mistreated his genius of a wife, and the only way Barack could have won was if the election was rigged.
* However, Barack unleashes Oprah, and she wrestles with Bill in Hand to Hand combat. Oprah wins, through details and sneakiness I dare not say, but is wounded in the melee.
* Barack lays hands upon her, and behold America has the opportunity to witness Revelation take place. Either with Oprah, or with Hillary. :-{P
* Hillary wins the New Hampshire election, and there is terribly bad blood between Hillary and Barack. Hillary arranges for Edwards support by promises she has no intention to keep, and is able to win South Carolina as well, however the voting irregularities will make Florida’s Miami and Dade county problems looking like a dress rehearsal.
* Barack will lose momentum as the press will turn on him. But Oprah will fund more of his campaign, hoping to keep it from hemorraging.
* Hillary goes into the convention with a narrow lead on delegates, but by no more than 5%, and the animosity at the Democratic convention (I pity the city that hosts them) will be so bad that rioting will break out. Of course Bush will be blamed for that as well....
* Hillary will make lots of promises behind closed doors and will have much more than 5% margin.
* Barack will regretfully yield, but only after being promised the position of Secretary of State.
* Hillary will be the nominee, but with some surprising vice presidential candidate.

And the winner??? Why, Duncan Hunter of course.

Happy new year to all!