A few points about Fred Thompson's candidacy are worth examining based on enthusiasm seen in comments at times at this site, as well as the vocal presence of local Fred enthusiasts, including Kirby Wilbur and Bryan Suits at KVI, and the participants of a recent, local, GOP straw poll. Of course, if one is interested there is more than just an example or two of fawning coverage of Thompson to be found. What, however, are the real world challenges he will face now that he's essentially running?
First, he'll get a relatively quick chance to confront the laziness question. John Dickerson gave the issue a pretty fair hearing at Slate:
Fair or not, the laziness rap against Thompson is like the rap that former presidential hopeful Sen. George Allen isn't a genius. Or that John McCain is a hothead. It's an unresolved issue waiting for its moment to become a crisis for the campaign....
Thompson's supporters say that once he officially enters the race around July Fourth, it will soon become apparent that he's out there humping it just as hard as the other guys. He'll have to. There's only so much you can do virtually. Howard Dean proved in Iowa in 2004 that enthusiasm, love, and the Internet do not lead to victory. A methodical, disciplined ground game matters, and Thompson is way behind.
It has been widely reported Thompson will rely on the Internet even more so than other modern campaigns to circulate his message. USA Today's coverage is but one example:
In an interview with USA TODAY, however, the former Tennessee senator not only makes it clear that he plans to run, he describes how he aims to do it. He's planning a campaign that will use blogs, video posts and other Internet innovations to reach voters repelled by politics-as-usual in both parties.
Such a potential strategy is not without serious risk:
For folks who have been around politics for a while, statements and strategies such as these are flashing lights and warning signals that these folks think they've found a shortcut to the White House.What a truly ridiculous notion.
No amount of name ID can replace one-on-one contact with voters, especially in early primary and caucus states.
Campaigns are about pressing the flesh. While new technology might help to increase the ways in which candidates communicate with voters, and the frequency in which they do so, nothing beats in-person appearances. Spoiled voters in early states demand face-to-face campaigning.
Furthermore, any candidate who has the slightest reputation for having a less than superhuman work ethic has to approach any presidential campaign with either an inhuman activity level or something that will pass for extraordinary, lest the "lazy" tag both sticks and hurts.
...
To think that technology can replace toil and sweat is, at the least, naive, if not delusional.
Why do some analysts reach such conclusions? I did some research on the reach of the Internet as a primary source for campaign information and found some interesting results.
Research by Pew showed 18% of respondents said the Internet was "one of their primary sources of news about the presidential campaign" in 2004. Similar study of the 2006 electorate found, "15% of all American adults say the internet was the place where they got most of their campaign news during the election." In the 2008 cycle at least two state polls have also addressed the topic, in both Iowa and South Carolina. The latter showed only 10% of those surveyed described the Internet as their "primary source" for campaign news, behind cable news, newspapers, and network news (in that order). The former poll had similar findings:
A new Des Moines Register Iowa Poll shows that the vast majority of caucus-bound Iowans are tapping traditional information sources - the newspaper and television - to learn more about the candidates for president....
The Register's poll shows that more than one-half of Iowa adults who say they definitely or probably will attend the Democratic caucuses are 55 years old or older.
By comparison, roughly one-tenth are 34 years old or younger.
The age makeup of those headed for the Republican caucuses is nearly the same.
Those of us pouring through news and analysis online and in the blogosphere may sometimes forget a huge portion of the electorate, especially in primaries, doesn't collect information in the same manner. Sure, blogs can have a powerful effect on news coverage and events (just ask Dan Rather and Trent Lott), but they are still only a minority driver of election information for many voters.
Even in the traditional media Thompson is going to have to ramp up to top campaign shape quickly. Tuesday's GOP debate showed that policy differences aside, Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, and Mitt Romney are effective under the gun and on camera. Contrast that showing with this recent performance by Thompson, lacking in the crisp precision necessary of a Presidential candidate:
(h/t: Real Clear Politics)
This is the danger of starting late. The other candidates have been honed by their experiences on the campaign trail thus far, as evident for example by Giuliani's steadily improving debate performances. Thus, Thompson has very little margin for error given that he'll be expected to be performing at the same level almost right away.
Which brings us to money. Word on the street is Florida will be one of Thompson's early focal points. There's reasonable logic behind that, but such a large state victory won't come cheap. Even here at the public blog there is enthusiasm for Thompson's recent online fundraising success. A word of caution on that.
There were a lot of prospective and excited donors waiting for the change to give, so his campaign should by all rights see an immediate influx of online cash. But the totals of $352,000 in 48 hours aren't wildly impressive. Giuliani raised $10 million in March, or roughly $333,000 a day. Granted not all of that was online, but even with a good month overall he still didn't match Mitt Romney's $20+ million in the first quarter. Thompson is off to a decent start but he's leaping into a campaign where the contenders in both parties are setting a very high bar (also, no word yet on the success of his "First Day" effort to round up $4.6 million out of the gate). There will be tremendous pressure to fundraise effectively and quickly, just like all the candidates, regardless of the lower fundraising expectations his campaign claims to hold.
I said after the last debate Thompson's entry into the race is a good thing. His impact on the issues debate alone is likely to benefit the eventual nominee, whomever it turns out to be. Yet the video clip above is but one example of how Thompson the candidate may not meet the expectations of the "draft Fred" movement, which seem to have been driven in large part by his pre-prepared punditry, not necessarily proven skills on the demanding, fast-paced Presidential campaign trail. He and his campaign will have a fair chance to address all the challenges discussed above. If they can it will be fascinating to watch. But like every other campaign they enter the race with a lot to prove.
UPDATE: George Will is skeptical too. Fred fans can talk heart though that even in late February a "draft Fred" movement was greeted with much skepticism. Lastly, here's the New York Observer piece by Jennifer Rubin referenced by Larry Kudlow in the above CNBC clip.
Posted by Eric Earling at June 09, 2007 08:51 PM | Email ThisThompson is relying on the internet, but his supporters are also putting forth the effort. In previous campaigns, bloggers and others who work online quite a bit have been shown to be able to help get turnout for a candidate.
There are enough people out in the world who are willing to work for Thompson's campaign. They are young, energetic, and are willing to put in the hard work in comparison to a weak-willed milquetoast like John McCain.
That will be what sets Thompson apart from others.
Posted by: Sakaki on June 9, 2007 09:09 PMTake a few trains. Make a few speaches and go home and talk on the radio. How much flesh pressing there?
Fred is damned smart working the Internet and his competitors advisors are paying close attention. Four years from not they all will follow.
I and millions upon millions will never press the flesh of any candidate, and never have. Fred will get to a helluva lot more people, especially young voters on the Intenet than anywhere he can go.
As to lazy, who brought that up? It's total crap. Smart can be lazy but there is nothing to say Fred ever shirked a duty. Let me remind you, acting day after day is not for lazy folks either.
Q. What is the definition of lazy?
A. A politician.
Don Jones
MyManFred
One problem with your own analysis, it's CNBC, not MSNBC, and the interviewer was Larry Kudlow, one of the more well known conservative pundits on economic issues. Also, the journalist Kudlow talks to after Thompson in the clip is Jennifer Rubin, a conservative writer for such publications as Human Events.
Don -
The "lazy" issue is routinely brought up by people that have worked around him...thus its frequent mention by analysts of various political persuasions. I worked in the Senate when Thompson was there. Nothing I heard then disputes the charge. But like I said in the post, he'll have ample chance to refute it by proving himself on the campaign trail.
Posted by: Eric Earling on June 9, 2007 10:09 PMBut having said that, I don't believe he will win the GOP nomination. He'd be a great running mate however.
I think Rudi has it in the bag. He has consistantly shown the Gravitas in this nation necessary to be the next president. His leadership in NY and during 9/11 will keep him at the top.
The Liberals will hoist Hillary and Obama as their candidates. If Gore doesn't enter the race that is.
Both Rudi and Fred have some humor and lightness in these tough times that will cut like a knife through the Democrats continuing Bush hating diatribe. They cannot speak a single issue without their Bush hating diatribe. They have proved they have nothing to add, except higher taxes and more of their socialism.
It is flat getting old.
2008 will not be a Democratic Win.
No Thanks!
No damn thanks!
Posted by: GS on June 9, 2007 10:34 PM
As to relying on the Internet, Fred's campaign's statements on the Internet are not significantly different from Mitt's. He didn't say, and I see no reason to believe he implied, that he would try to take a shortcut through the Internet to the White House.
Posted by: pudge on June 10, 2007 12:21 AMAgree wholeheartedly on the Dems's frontrunners.
Guliani, however, will never capture the GOP presidential nomination. Only in Rino regions such as NYC and west coast metropolitan areas could he pass muster as a Republican. Thompson CAN pass the red-state roll call on abortion, homosexual marriage and gun rights and could attract liberal votes with Guiliani on his ticket as VP.
Posted by: Saltherring on June 10, 2007 06:45 AMWhen it comes time to deliver the speeches to draw in the vote and finally rally the nation as president to a common goal, he'll deliver the message and capture the hearts of those most important. He won't appeal to extreme left or right that have captured the political scene in this country. But, he will be heard by 80% of the population in this country. And, they will like what he says.
Mitt is polished does and says all the right things but he still comes across as a light weight pretty boy. Someone on the other side have called him a poser or a pretender. Not too far off.
McCain is a war hero, he should stick to that. He is also a lousy senator from AZ where he has joined with the gang of 14 to unsettle and uproot the conservative adgenda in the country for the last 7 years at least. He's basically become a democrat dressed up in a Ted Kennedy business suit.
Gulliani is the first best chance to beat Hillary if Thompson fails to launch. I'd like to think NY would follow one of their own to the whitehouse as icing for the cake. Unfortunately, Rudi has so many bones in his closet the press will eventually grind his election effort to meal. Not to mention the the far right will never support him. Fred with Rudi as a running mate for is an interesting concept!
One thing for sure- just when you think all the data clearly predicts a given outcome, something out of the blue will come along and change everything
Yeah, Repubs could learn a thing or two from Democrats- like how to use talk radio.
Or intimidating campaign volunteers.
Or slashing tires on vans taking shut-ins to polling places.
Yep. The Democrats sure have it down, don't they?
Posted by: ERNurse on June 10, 2007 08:17 AMIt's great that folks are so engaged on issues... just don't be blinded by ONE issue.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on June 10, 2007 08:25 AMI love Newt, he's always been choice #1 for me, but I'm loyal not living in a dream world.
I sincerely hope whoever the candidate is, he has the brains to choose Mike Huckabee as his running mate.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on June 10, 2007 08:30 AMI might also point out that if you look into the 2006 election in Vancouver you will find a candidate that used the internet only and less than $100 dollars to unseat a local incumbent on a long shot (granted this is local office not the presidency, but it shows that it can be done).
Posted by: TrueSoldier on June 10, 2007 08:37 AMYou're full of it.
If anyone is lazy it is you, other than your ability to babble on a keyboard and cut and paste a few odds and ends. But to think such sophomoric banter is 'information' is preposterous. You would do better to join Medved and his circle jerk with Pedro with your yellow journal rant.
You haven't research Thompson, that is clear.
So why clutter up Stefan's blog?
Try the Stranger where fiction masquerades as fact on a weekly basis.
Posted by: Michael in Seattle on June 10, 2007 08:47 AMYou're full of it.
If anyone is lazy it is you, other than your ability to babble on a keyboard and cut and paste a few odds and ends. But to think such sophomoric banter is 'information' is preposterous. You would do better to join Medved and his circle jerk with Pedro with your yellow journal rant.
You haven't researched Thompson, that is clear.
So why clutter up Stefan's blog?
Try the Stranger where fiction masquerades as fact on a weekly basis.
Posted by: Michael in Seattle on June 10, 2007 08:47 AMYou're full of it.
If anyone is lazy it is you, other than your ability to babble on a keyboard and cut and paste a few odds and ends. But to think such sophomoric banter is 'information' is preposterous. You would do better to join Medved and his circle jerk with Pedro with your yellow journal rant.
You haven't researched Thompson, that is clear.
So why clutter up Stefan's blog?
Try the Stranger where fiction masquerades as fact on a weekly basis.
Posted by: Michael in Seattle on June 10, 2007 08:48 AMAs far as long shots go, best I recall, who had heard of Bill Clinton before the 1992 election? Something to think about.
Posted by: LewWaters on June 10, 2007 10:32 AMTHAT is what killed his campaign. He blew everything on a major early loss. He had almost no money left, and his momentum had dropped to Joe "Mentum" Lieberman levels. "The scream" was just the nail in the coffin.
Posted by: pudge on June 10, 2007 10:58 AMThompson/Hunter '08, possibly?
Posted by: Sakaki on June 10, 2007 11:37 AMWithin 3 months of Bill Clinton announcing his candidacy for president polls had him almost 20% ahead of his nearest competitor. Stick a fork in Hunter, he's done, as well as Tancredo, Brownback, and the lot of the 1-percenters. As much as they more closely resemble our views, they don't have a chance.
If the RNC wants a stronger conservative candidate other than Thompson or Newt, or..cough..Romney they should tell all of them but Huckabee to leave the race and put their support behind him.
Posted by: Doug on June 10, 2007 02:47 PMWhat is the full name of the Hunter person that you are referring to and who are they?
Posted by: WVH on June 10, 2007 03:35 PMUmmm...Were you paying attention in the Reagan years? More Reagan Revisionism!
Posted by: Michelle on June 10, 2007 04:36 PMBill H
Posted by: Bill H on June 10, 2007 06:18 PMThey will all be so busy with their eyes on Healthcare for everyone, global warming and tax raising, that America will become a terrorists delight.
Posted by: GS on June 10, 2007 08:09 PM
http://www.foxnews.com/video2/player06.html?060507/060507_hc_thompson&Hannity_Colmes&Interview%3A%20Fred%20Thompson&acc&Politics&-1&News&599&&&exp
http://www.jonesreport.com/articles/100607_cfr_nau_2008.html
He's not the only Republican (or Democratic)candidate with such questionable ties. People should start their research with the following questions FIRST -- 1) what shady organizations might this candidate belong to, and 2) who is funding or running his campaign?
If you didn't start there, you may as well start all over again ;-) This is how the Republican party became a party of neoconservatives -- poor research!
Posted by: Nicole Taylor on June 11, 2007 09:39 PMNot sure what it will take to sufficiently ferret out liabilities that major candidates show. If the McCain-Feingold bill were repealed by the Supreme Court, perhaps there would be a better chance...
Posted by: KS on June 11, 2007 09:48 PMWelcome to my site!
Posted by: free cell phone ringtones on June 15, 2007 03:39 PMWelcome to my site!
Posted by: us cellular ringtones on June 16, 2007 02:23 AM