Everyone (well, not everyone, but the conventional wisdom) is writing off Fred Thompson.

But this prognostication raises a question that (as far as I know) has never been asked. Everyone assumes that if Fred drops out, he throws his support to his old bud McCain. But what if Thompson does much better than expected, and after South Carolina, McCain drops out? Where does his support go? Will he explicitly endorse Thompson? And even if not, will his voters go there anyway?

It's hard to see them going to Huckabee, Romney or Giuliani. What do they have to offer the conservatives and hawks who were with McCain (assuming that's why they were with him). Neither Huck or Mitt has been very strong on the war (that's a vast understatement with respect to Huckabee, who seems to be a Republican version of Jimmy Carter). And Rudy seems too socially liberal to attract McCain voters (many of whom are presumably attracted by his pro-life position).

If Fred comes in third (and two positions above McCain) in Iowa, as predicted above, he will probably have enough momentum to ignore New Hampshire and raise money for South Carolina. Particularly since he will have shown that he didn't "enter too late" (the other candidates entered too early, as he continually points out) and that he can do well when he focuses on a needed state.

The key point is that with all of these polls, no one has a majority. The real question is: where will people go when their favorite flames out? People should be asking that about every candidate, not just Fred. This is still anyone's (well, OK, not Ron Paul's, or the other minor candidates') race, in that if one can pick off the votes of the others, they can rapidly raise their percentage to a majority. This seems like good news for Fred to me, if he can do well tonight. This is a result of the fact that there's no Republican incumbent.

And if no one can, then things will be very interesting at the convention. It seems to me that if it ends up brokered, that ends up being good for the most genuine heir to Ronald Reagan as well.

I'm not sure why you're ruling Ron Paul out, but saying that Fred has a chance. When I last looked at the Zogby poll (earlier today), Paul was polling at 11%, and Thompson was at 8%.

I rule Paul out because even if he came in first place in Iowa, he's have no chance of getting the Republican nomination. Or if he did, it would be even more suicidal than the Goldwater nomination in 1964.

Ed, Ron Paul may have similar polling numbers to Fred Thompson but it's pretty clear that Thompson's positions are closer to the center of gravity of the Republican party. If other candidates drop out their supporters could realistically switch to Thompson but it's unlikely that many would consider switching to Paul. In other words, 10% is probably a ceiling for Paul in the Republican primary electorate while Thompson could, given the right circumstances, go much higher.

Ed:
You're right that Paul is polling well enough. The problem I see with him is that he's so far out of step with the majority of the Republican party that (1) he can't win the Republican primary, and (2) when he loses, his supporters will take their ball and go home (or to an anti-war Democrat).

Fred could realistically pick up supporters from candidates that drop out. The only way Paul picks up anyone new is as an independent, which means no Presidency for him. The established parties are weak, but they aren't Whig-weak.

If that's the case, then why would anyone bother campaigning in Iowa?

If a candidate drops out after he has won delegates (very possible even early on in states that are not winner take all) does he get to choose who delegates are assigned to? Or do they become unaffiliated delegates to the convention?

The republicans will probably lose the national election no matter which candidate, other than Ron Paul, is nominated. In the national election some states will vote republican, no matter what; and some states will vote democrat, no matter what. The national election will boil down to how the votes fall in about six states that are neither strongly republican nor democrat.

Demographically, those states now lean slightly Democrat. The winning republican will have to voice a narrative to get them to lean towards republican.

The current narrative mouthed by the leading Republicans: be afraid of the terrorists, bomb the Iranians, stay in Iraq forever; will not win those states. The only candidate who voices a different narrative is Ron Paul.

The current narrative mouthed by the leading Republicans: be afraid of the terrorists, bomb the Iranians, stay in Iraq forever; will not win those states. The only candidate who voices a different narrative is Ron Paul.

In other words, you've actually been paying absolutely no attention to the Republican race.

No, my description of the narrative was facetious, lighten up a little.

No, my description of the narrative was facetious, lighten up a little.

That's easy to say after the fact. It's not persuasive at all.

"be afraid of the terrorists, bomb the Iranians, stay in Iraq forever"

You are in dire need of a sense of humor if that doesn't sound facetious. The rest of my original comment was not in jest and I stand by it.

You are in dire need of a sense of humor if that doesn't sound facetious.

Sorry, but when you mix nonsense with what you fantasize to be serious commentary, you shouldn't be surprised that you're taken to be as unserious as you appear to be.

Jardinero, how did you miss #1: Immigrant Bashing ?

Be careful Toast_n_Tea, Rand might think you're serious and call you unserious or a pseudonymous moron or even worse. He gets real edgy when you make fun of Republicans even though he isn't one.

Yes, I've noticed that. He says he isn't a conservative either. I'm not sure what he is, really. I just like his non-politics posts.

I enjoyed it more when it was less partisan. The out of the box thinking on space and technology was what brought me here several years ago.

I'm not sure what he is, really.

Someone equivalent to a secular conservative Republican but who doesn't want to admit it.

The out of the box thinking on space and technology was what brought me here several years ago.

My thinking on politics is out of the box as well. Sorry you don't like it.

I'm not sorry that Jim Harris (pathetically) remains unable to pigeonhole me. In fact, I enjoy his inability to do so, because he apparently finds it so idiotically important to do so.

My thinking on politics is out of the box as well.

Or, you could say, out of the coffin.

Way to go Fred! You got third! (For him, that's winning.)

Considering how the media has written him off (and I'm very disappointed in Fox) Fred did ok.

Those voters that have been interviewed on tv in the past few days seemed particularly vapid, but the idiocy of the process trumps that.

I'm hoping the blogosphere gets people to focus more on substance. I was hoping Fred got at least 20%, but there's still time.

Actually, Rand, I agree with most of your political posts. I part company with you only with regard to national defense, it meaning and scope.

Ed Minchau wrote:
"If that's the case, then why would anyone bother campaigning in Iowa?"

*cough* Giuliani didn't *cough* ^_^

For the fun of it I predict the Democrat competition is almost over before it began resulting in Obama and that the Republican endgame will be Fred vs. Rudy.

And maybe Ron will run as an independent scoring up to 20 percent in the election (lots of Democrats don't seem to like Obama). If not it might be a record low turnout.

If McCain doesn't win New Hampshire, what DOES he have? If Romney can beat him out there, all the momentum McCain is counting on dies, as far as I can tell. They're within a few hundred votes of each other in Iowa...

To answer the original question, my current support would be for Fred. I do think a 3rd place finish is pretty good considering the negative to absent press coverage he has received in the lead up. I haven't seen numbers for NH, but he will have to do well in SC.

However, I don't see him dropping out an McCain really being an option. Between Huckabee and Obama, I might abstain or vote Obama. I could vote for Romney or McCain. I would probably vote for Guiliani in a national race, but only then. I could vote for Ron Paul if he made it to the national race, but no way would I vote for him in a primary. As for considering the Democratic primary vote... I don't see Hillary winning, and I'm mostly indifferent with Obama or Edwards.

For the fun of it I predict the Democrat competition is almost over before it began resulting in Obama

Everyone knew Her Inevitableness wasn't going to win in Iowa -- including her. She stayed in so that the Democrats who opposed her wouldn't have the breathing space to agree on either Obama or Edwards to take her down in the later contests.

I'll believe it's over for her when Dorothy and the gang bring me her broom and hat.