Saturday, March 24, 2007

Hey! Owen! Steve!! Wiggy!! What's your Bet?

The callout is to the reigning non-Media political analysts...Wiggy, Boots and Eggs...

When Fred jumps in, a lot of water's going to leave the pool.

How about this:

McCain cannot attract the Conservatives and cannot be nominated. He knows it.

Fred, Ruuuuuudeeeee!!!!, and Mitt duke it out--but since Ruuuudeeee!! and Mitt attract a few (but not a lot of) Conservatives, they wind up in the scrap-heap.

Tommy!! gets a lot of voters in Iowa, but that's all.

The Hildebeeste soldiers on, but cannot KO Obama. Nor can Obama KO the Hildebeeste.


Democrats divide. McCain goes Indy.

Thompson gets the (R) nomination and takes the prize, with McCain and the (D-Whoever) splitting off a few States, evenly divided.

This could be fun.


Pete Fanning said...

Run, Fred, Run!

Nobody of the current crop has the conservative credentials (at least in my voting book, and that's whats important to this voter), and that's why when the rumors started about Fred I jumped up in my seat. You look at his voting record and you go, hmmmm...YES, I know about McCain-Feingold, and while he can't go back and change his vote he shouldn't apologize for his view that campaign finance needed reformed. He can surely come out and express support for reviewing McCain-Feingold's effect on Free Speech and for enacting reforms where needed as it impacts the First Amendment.

But overall, I strongly feel this should not disqualify the fmr Senator.....he has the appeal and electability with the voters, is DEFINITELY loved by all in Tennessee...I think that state is a given if he runs....

Anonymous said...

Works for me! I'd love to see a Fred Thompson ticket. I've even contemplated the prospect of a Thompson/Thompson ticket. Interesting, eh?

- Owen

Dad29 said...

I don't think that Fred would choose Tommy!! as a running mate--it would demolish his Conservative cred.

What about J C Watts?

steveegg said...

First things first, thanks for the flattery. Dunno how I ranked in the same area code as Owen and James though.

At first blush, this seems plausible. However, Pete brought out a big no-go on Fred Thompson that is not easily explained away; McCain-Feingold. After all, it is the single biggest impediment to John McCain's campaign on the conservative side of the voting booth (especially with McCain's "conversion" on ethanol allowing him to compete after a fashion in Iowa). Many conservatives felt and still feel that the focus of campaign finance reform should be on disclosure rather than regulation and banning, especially considering the express, clear wording of the First Amendment.

Over on the Dem side, it simply is too early to tell whether they'll buck the trend of surprises. However, they can't ignore that the last 3 times they captured the White House, they publicly ran way, way away from their liberal tendencies at the top of the ticket. That would tend to exclude from everybody in the field except for Hillary Clinton, who, like her husband, somehow managed to position herself as the "moderate".

As for the Vice-Presidential hopefuls, that's not going to be a break, especially since that race doesn't start in earnest until there is a Presidential nominee.

I'll have to chew this over for a while (over a Spotted Cow) and think the rest of this through.

Dad29 said...

That's Fred's only strike. Compare to the rest--McC is weak on the 2A, weak on abortion, and wrote McC/F. Rudy and Mitt are floppers, period.

Yah HRC has to run to the middle, which is what she's doing already. But--is the "middle" of the D party going to vote for her in the primaries?

That VP thing--I'm not so sure that the race starts AFTER the nomination of the Pres. That's going on right now--why do you think that T Thompson is running?

Would be fun with Watts, though.

steveegg said...

If McCain is weak on the 2nd Amendment, Giuliani is non-existant. Indeed, if memory serves, he's been prominently mentioned by Sarah Brady's outfit numerous times as a supporter of gun grabs.

I'm starting to collate my thoughts. I still haven't found a horse I can wholeheartedly back, however (as I said, supporting McShame-Slimeroad is a huge strike against Fred Thompson, almost on par with the auto-DQs of gun-grabbing and abortion-supporting).

I won't deny the VP race has started, but it is low-key until after somebody locks up the nomination. It doesn't have any bearing on the Presidential race at this point, however, and it will not drive somebody that supports the top of the ticket away.

steveegg said...

My 11-months-too-early calls are up:

Part 1 - the Pubbies - Fred Thompson
Part 2 - the Dems - Hillary Clinton
Part 3 - the general - coin flip

Allow me to quote The Asian Badger - "Often wrong, never in doubt."

James Wigderson said...

What kind of odds do you need? If you were to ask me today, and I guess you are, my guess is that Fred Thompson doesn't run, Tommy! finishes fifth in Iowa, and John McCain wins the nomination.

Somebody beg Steve Forbes to run.

steveegg said...

Somebody beg Steve Forbes to run.

There's a name from the past. I actually supported him until the inevitable back in 1999/2000.

steveegg said...

And if Fred doesn't run, look for the Rats to run a moonbat, which will win.

Dad29 said...

Wiggy, that's just what the (R) Party needs.

A rich kid whose idea of the ideal country is one which has a "flat" tax (i.e., one which is very kind to Steve Forbes and all his friends.) MAYBE if he were in favor of the consumption tax--that's a lot easier to 'splain to the folks the R's must attract.

Granted, Forbes is a personable guy. But the (R) nominee MUST attract the blue dog Dems.

Steve Forbes can't do that, period.