Thompson

Via at Politico:

Fred Thompson dropped out of the race for the Republican nomination for president with a brief statement saying he hoped “my country and my party have benefited from our having made this effort.

It’s times like this that I’m reminded of the immortal words of Queen:

Another one bites the dust

Seriously, even though I likely wouldn’t have voted for him, due to disagreeing too strongly on many issues, I enjoyed watching Thompson campaign towards the end. His no-BS attitude could have made for a rather entertaining campaign.

I also appreciate his apparent attempt to inject a sense of realism into the campaign (i.e., acknowledging that Iowa and New Hampshire really are small states in the grand scheme of things…assuming that was his strategy, rather than simple lethargy).

Sadly, he seemed to miss that in modern America, attention spans are short, and hype matters.

So, what, we’re down to about a half-dozen contenders now?

A few thoughts:

• Conventional wisdom is that Thompson won the debate.  I’m not sure that I’d go quite that far, and I’d have to wonder how much of that assessment is Fox-generated hype.  Notwithstanding my reservations, however, he did come across as a straight-talking, good ol’ boy who should be doing far better than his recent polling would indicate.
   
• If Romney weren’t well-financed and if he didn’t have extensive ground operations in place, I’d say, “put a fork in him, he’s done”.  He’s coming across as either a candidate in search of a message, or a politician who’s trying to be all things to all people.  He seems to be having problems carving a viable niche in the spectrum of messages, with the more popular messages having been claimed by other candidates.
   
  If Romney could credibly communicate the idea that he’d be effective at cleaning up waste and advancing a reasonably conservative message in the face of a hostile Congress, allowing him to build upon his resume of Massachusetts governor and Salt Lake City Olympic reformer, he might have a shot.  However, that shot is waning as Giuliani solidifies on the “I’m most likely to shift the purple states red” message.
   
• I can’t decide whether Ron Paul was just his usual nutty self, or if Fox carefully worked to make him seem extra-nutty.   I’m leaning towards the latter, given how the questions he faced were more in the “one of these things is not like another / one of these things is not the same” vein, from which he struggled to shift to answering policy questions handed to others, and given how giddy the commentators were over Paul’s low reaction numbers from their viewer’s panel…but Paul comes across as  a nut on his own, even without Fox’s assistance.
   
  If Fox News were as fair and balanced as it claims, they’d have a reasonable sounding Paul supporter on to explain why Paul’s message is appealing to his supporters (sometimes in spite of Paul’s quirks).
   
  Sadly, the notion that a nontrivial portion of the American electorate craves a small-government, pro-individual-liberties candidate so much that they’d tolerate quirks in their candidate, seems to finally be getting lost in Paul’s nuttiness.
   
• I have to give props to Huckabee for deflecting criticism and the spotlighting of the unconservativeness / un-neoconness of his positions while still coming across as a nice, likeable guy.
   
• If anyone won the debate, I’d have to name McCain.  He might not have won the battle of the soundbites (a title that Thompson did earn), but he seems to be solidifying his framing as a Republican partisans might not like, but who is viewed as most electable by partisans.

So, tomorrow is the Iowa caucus, and as might be expected, folks are making their final predictions.

The most interesting of these, I think, are Robert Novak’s, who’s expecting:

• On the GOP side: Romney first, Huckabee second, Thompson third, McCain fourth, and Ron Paul fifth
   
• …however there’s potential for quite a bit of volatility among the number 3, 4, and 5 positions.  (”Ron Paul could make a splash, as well. He’s in fifth place in most polls, but his supporters are unmatched in enthusiasm and dedication. A third-place finish for Paul is not out of the question.”)
   
• Among the Dems: Obama first, Edwards second, Clinton third, and Richardson fourth-but-irrelevant.
   
• Expect Obama and Edwards to benefit the most from Iowa’s 15% viability rule, since Clinton is rarely anyone’s second choice.  (You apparently love Hillary or hate her.  Edwards appears to be the most popular choice among supporters for the also-rans.)
   
• Novak also mentions the possibility that the rest of the Democratic field could drop out, perhaps even before New Hampshire next week.

  (Personally, I’d think that Richardson, Dodd, and Biden would hold on in the off chance of a miracle in New Hampshire, but it’s likely that they’ll admit non-viability very soon now.  Kucinich and Gravel I’d think would hang on, out of nuttiness and orneriness respectively.)

With the deadline for adjusting party affiliation for the Super-Duper-Tuesday primary approaching, I had been getting curious about polling numbers in Connecticut, to see if my vote would be more useful in either the D’s or the R’s primary.

(Annoyingly, to vote in a primary in CT, you have to predeclare a party affiliation, despite the fact that our tax dollars pay for every party’s primary. The deadline to switch parties in Connecticut for the February primary is 7 November, and you can use the regular voter registration form to make the change.)

Quinnipiac University appears to have addressed my curiosity with one of their recent releases:

Clinton dominates a Connecticut Democratic primary with 43 percent, followed by Obama with 16 percent and Edwards with 8 percent. Sen. Christopher Dodd gets 7 percent.

Giuliani rules the Republican race with 42 percent, trailed by McCain with 14 percent, Thompson with 10 percent and Romney with 9 percent.

In the presidential face-off, Clinton gets 44 percent to Giuliani’s 42 percent.

The passage quoted doesn’t mention that Obama and McCain are running third in their respective races, behind “don’t know”.

With Connecticut looking “safe” for Clinton and Giuliani, I don’t think I need to hold my nose and vote for a viable candidate for either party. Instead, I’m thinking I might re-affiliate with the pachyderms in order to cast a Ron Paul vote, in the hopes of helping some libertarian…or at least fiscally conservative…ideas get a bit more mainstream attention.

Oh, and you’d think that with Dodd drawing only 7% of the vote in his home state, he might get the message that perhaps it’s time to help thin the Democratic candidate field?

The Q Poll also provides information on polling in New York and New Jersey:

• New York:
  • Dems: Clinton 49%, Don’t Know 16%, Obama 12%, Edwards 11%
  • Reps: Giuliani 45%, Don’t Know 15%, Thompson 12%, McCain 9%
  • Prez: Clinton 50%, Giuliani 36%, Don’t Know 9%
• New Jersey:
  • Dems: Clinton 46%, Obama 20%, Don’t Know 14%, Edwards 9%, Romney 7%
  • Reps: Giuliani 48%, Don’t Know 13%, Thompson 12%, McCain 12%, Romney 7%
  • Prez: Giuliani 44%, Clinton 44%

In other words, I foresee a potentially sleepy primary up in this corner of the country…but the presidential race could actually be competitive in Connecticut, for a change, if Giuliani gets the nod.