A Contest: The McCain 2008 Dead Pool

Last one out, please turn out the lights

By krempasky Posted in | Comments (113) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

John McCain's campaign is worse off than you think. Down to a paltry $250,000 on hand ($2mil less $1.75mil in debt) and preparing to lay off more staff next week, you can put a fork in McCain. Typical of the politician mindset, in one breath McCain takes responsibility for the disaster that is his effort to win the Presidency, and in the next jokes that "I fired 'em all."

But this ins't about dissecting the myriad reasons for McCain's problems (and they are legion), but instead a little contest. Let's start a pool on the official "lights out" date. It's a simple thing - just post a comment to this post, choosing the day you think McCain announces his withdrawal from the race. First timestamped comment with a particular entry owns that date - and only one reader can own any date.

The prize is simple: if John McCain drops out and no one has the exact date, the person getting closest to correct (if equidistant, the earlier wins), I'll donate $100 to Jeff Emanuel's trip to embed in Iraq in their name. If a reader gets the drop date exactly right, I'll give $250.

So get on with the predicting, already. And July 20th is my pick. You can't have it.

« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims?Comments (2) | Take heart, Presidential candidates. Even Joe Biden does.Comments (6) »
A Contest: The McCain 2008 Dead Pool 113 Comments (0 topical, 113 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »

want to be in on this early

Far out.

I think Fred Thompson will announce on the 7th and McCain will sign off the afternoon before.

CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

have nitro handy in case the elation causes palpitations. I certainly will have it nearby.

but it's a non-event.

And besides, while I may have the belly, hairline, knees, back, and temperment of a 60 year old man, I have the heart of a 20 year old. :>)
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

Two days after Fred! enters the race.

The CIA has better politicians than it has spies - Fred Thompson

I say he hangs on for a while more before admitting the inevitable.

Perhaps oui. Perhaps no. I'll let you know in an hour.

I'll take August 19. Right in the middle of the dead time in Washington DC.

(Formerly known as bee) / Internet member since 1987
Member of the Surreality-Based Community

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

John McCain is not a quitter. I think he will muddle through until the first big batch of primaries is over on Feb 5. And if the tea leaves are not good, he drops out the day after.

In 2000 he hung in for quite a while after everyone knew he was dead. He could be more desperate this time since this is his last shot.
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

how does he last that long without money? Does his credit extend that far?

it was that he spent way too much. He'll stay solvent if he can keep the expenses to 5M a quarter. He will stay in until Feb 8th, 1PM.

Can I still play if I already declared the candidacy dead?

Develop alternatives to existing policies and keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes the politically inevitable. Milton Friedman

The pool is on when he will agree with you.

"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill

Right after the Sept. 30th fundraising numbers make it clear that Sen. McCain's summertime changes to the campaign have resulted in no new money coming in. Also, Fred will and Newt may be in by then.

Develop alternatives to existing policies and keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes the politically inevitable. Milton Friedman

I think Fred has sucked up the oxygen for "candidate whose entry is demanded by conservatives."

Also, doesn't McCain have access to his own fundraising #s well before he has to announce the quarterly take? Better to get out before he needs that to go public.

"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill

I've actually been wondering whether or not Mike Bloomberg intends to run as an Independent or go into what he deems as "philanthropy" by supporting a candidate with his enormous stack of cash. It's abundantantly clear that Bloomberg isn't happy with *any* of the current candidates from either party, unless perhaps he can make one of them a King. And...

Of all the people in the field that Bloomberg might support with large, large sums of money if he were to decide to not run, I can't think of anyone other than John McCain.

McCain is stubborn enough to hang on for a long time after dropping in the polls, so I'm tempted to pick a date in January. But stubborn is one thing; broke is another. I don't think he will have enough money to get to November.

I say he gets out in September and rolls it into a broader message about uniting behind Gen. Petraeus and the war effort.

"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill

Does this count if he changes party affiliation on that date instead?

Soldier's Mom - Golfer's Wife - Home alone a lot

That, of course, would most certainly NOT be something worth celebrating.

I would not want it to be said, nor implied that I would celebrate a change of identification --- I was just recalling the Kerry/McCain connection during the election of 2004. I am sure he will run out of money soon, and might in desperation turn to the other side in order to raise funds.

Again, I would not at all celebrate a party change, not now, not ever.

Just trying to have fun with the rest of the right wingers.

Soldier's Mom - Golfer's Wife - Home alone a lot

haystack's 12th:
Conservatives (and Presidential Candidates especially) shall offer no aid and comfort to the opposition in times of legislative conflict (and ensuing political campaigns).

If Fred has the smarts and the ability, he'll sit down with Big John, talk strait to the man about what he's all about and ask McCain to step aside.

McCain's no body's fool, and can read the tea leaves as well as anyone else, he knows it's over but wants respect, something Bush did not show much of to McCain. A direct and private conversation between Fred and Big John talking to each other as gentlemen who care a great deal about the country could do wonders to show McCain respect and to show him a way to end his campaign with dignity.

None of the Above !

You must pick a date certain to qualify.


Fred will announce right after labor day, or maybe on Labor Day.

Call in September 3, 2007, High Noon in Fred's home town.

Joint appearance with McCain who announces his leaving the race, and throwing his support behind Fred Thompson who will announce his run.

At the conclusion of the joint announcement, McCain and Fred will jump into Fred's red pickup and head off for the nearest Hooters for 'wings. No wives, trophy or other wise (no offence intended to Mrs. McCain) allowed.

None of the Above !

It's a monday, its the first quarter for the government, forth for business.

He hasn't acknowledged the extent to which he is torqued yet. He will want to hang around and see if people will be stupid and forget his immigration reform bill.

I'd rather see Gore get oxed than my ox get gored.

And here I thought that Tommy (The Other) Thompson would be first out.

If I were you I'd also think about starting a thread about when Mike Bloomberg is going to announce and how much money he's going to spend. That could be an even more interesting contest.

I was between August 28 and September 30th, but haystack already took September 30th, so I'll take August 28.

Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.

as good a day as any

He will make one final push over labor day weekend, but it won't be enough.

I'll put a time with my obvious prediction of September 3rd: 8 a.m. so McCain can play martyr all day during the Labor Day slow news cycle.

Hehe by zuiko

I was thinking that too... thats why I went for a Friday. That way he can guarantee that he will be the talk of all the Sunday news shows.
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

In fact, your Friday choice allows Eastern columnists time to write how the mean, evil conservative Republicans did the man in. All crap, of course, but something McCain laps up.

Saturday, nobody listening to political news (especially because the Dallas Cowboys will have opened training camp and so the world will essentially pause in its rotation for awhile).

It's war -- so when can we start shooting back at the enemy Democrats?

" in the end, it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years."
Abe Lincoln

A nice quiet Saturday to fade out.

McCain is not my favorite Republican in the world, but I also don't think that people should be overjoyed about the implosion of his candidacy. I was not a supporter of his presidential campaign, and I disagree with him on campaign finance reform, immigration, and tax cuts, but I take no pleasure in the demise of his campaign. Whatever you think about him, he is a decorated combat veteran and POW. He is the best and most articulate defender of the Iraq mission, and he really does stick to his guns, even when it is not politically expedient. He knew that the GOP primary voters would not go for his immigration bill but he stuck with it.

“.....women and minorities hardest hit”

I would celebrate the demise of the politician. The man still gets tons of respect from me.

Once he retires he'll be widely loved, mark my words.

Run like Reagan!

working for Fred...no tears here.

" in the end, it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years."
Abe Lincoln


" in the end, it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years."
Abe Lincoln

vote for him for President. Still, a VERY good man.

Of course I'm overjoyed that his campaign is floundering. I absolutely don't want to see the man as the next POTUS. I see no reason to get all weepy about him giving up his hopeless campaign.
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

I think he's one of the most valuable people we have in Washington, actually. The Economist really thinks his immigration bill was visionary. He was right about Jack Abramoff. He certainly wasn't more wrong than anyone else about "boots on the ground in Iraq". He was dead wrong on a couple of other issues of particular importance here at RedState.

The problem is partly a matter of taste at this point: you have the people who are looking for centrists and you have the people who are looking for purists. I think Republicans right now are looking for much more purist candidates, and John McCain isn't one of them. Fred Thompson might be. Basically nobody else who is in the first tier is, aside from him, and Thompson isn't officially running yet.

Romney is a purist but only a late-convert purist who was governor of a northeastern Liberal state and is suffering the slings and arrows of the people here who would absolutely like to see him fail, precisely because they realize he's so competent. They'd much rather see Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama win, and that means that they have to cut Romney to pieces.

In my view John McCain's biggest misfortune for this election happened in the runup to the last election when columnists at the Washington Post were calling for him to join a bipartisan ticket with John Kerry, and there was some serious talk (although denied by him) that he might do so. That and the fact that his own constituency in Arizona lodged a big protest over him, and that nobody really identifies with him as a candidate from either party.

Truth to tell, though, in actual *practice* but not in terms of what people say in public, John McCain is probably closer to what most Americans actually believe than any other candidate in the field. They'll never admit that, and that's why he'll never win.

When I say "here" in the third paragraph above regarding Romney, I didn't mean "here" at RedState, although there are plenty of people who don't trust him on this blog. I meant "here" in Massachusetts: I think Romney's biggest national opposition so far has come from the people who never wanted him here as a (R) in the first place, and are now determined to see that he fails in his bid for the Presidency.

There are persons from outside Taxachusetts (I mean Massachusetts) who never want to see
a Mormon elected President, and there are many persons in the western half of the country, who never want to see ANYBODY from New England (or New York), elected as President.

And with those two comments I'm going to leave this for another thread because I really think this constitutes a threadjack on my part and others'. I'll just leave it there for now, but I agree with you. In fact, that's exactly what someone who works in Washington said to me about 8 months ago, before Romney's campaign began, before The New Republic published its first heavy-breating pieces about the terrible philosophical questions raised by Romney's mormonism, before any of it:

"This country will never elect a Mormon as President. Period." That's what I was told 8 months ago by someone pretty well-connected in D.C. Everything I've seen so far, in one way or another, has borne that prophesy out.

To me, personally, Mitt Romney's Mormonism is the least of my worries when it comes to him as a Presidential candidate. He's arguably the most faithful husband in the race right now, he's got a great family, he's been an entrepreneur, and as far as I know, the only great philosophical bias the liberals might have against Mormonism is that it construes the United States to be the Greatest Place on Earth. Somehow those things don't bother me, and nothing in his record from Massachusetts as a governor says to me that he governed as a Mormon governor...here...in the most atheist/agnostic state in the Union.

Huh? by zuiko

You really lost me here:

Truth to tell, though, in actual *practice* but not in terms of what people say in public, John McCain is probably closer to what most Americans actually believe than any other candidate in the field. They'll never admit that, and that's why he'll never win.

On the dozen or so important issues that he's been completely wrong on, I really think he's wrong. I'm not just thinking that it sounds really cool to say his votes against the tax cuts (and work to sabotage them with Daschle) were wrong, I really believe it.
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

To people here. I mean the public at large. And it remains to be seen whether or not they think the Bush tax cuts are a good idea.

I have a post coming up later on the latest issue of the Economist and I'll make an educated guess that if you took a poll about repealing the Bush tax cuts right now, a majority of the public would be in favor of doing so. Probably by a pretty significant margin. I don't think they'll last much longer, even though I support them.

And if you took a count of those people who publicly claim the tax cuts were a great thing but secretly want them repealed, I would expect that number to be very close to zero. In any case, that number would be dwarfed by the people who publicly say they should have never been passed and need to be repealed but don't really want them repealed, because it will hurt their bottom line.

I don't think there's anything particularly popular about McCain's positions. In fact, some of them (like redefining torture to include anything that might be denigrating or uncomfortable) would be unbelievably unpopular with the public, because they defy common sense. Or the fact that we can't really enforce immigration law until we give everybody z visas and open the door for more unskilled laborers to come in as "guests" who will never leave. The guy has a penchant for crusading on some unpopular positions.

He doesn't have any problem with the public secretly agreeing with him. If they did secretly support his "maverick" stands, people would be supporting him in the primary.
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

I disagree, but unfortunately I don't have the polling data to back it up. But I do think that if someone at RCP or Rasmussen or even Zogby wanted to do something interesting, they could ask a single polling question:

"Do you think the Bush Administration tax cuts should be repealed?"

I think the answer to that question would be very surprising indeed. My gut-level guess is that right now you'd find a majority of people in this country who think so.

I invite the professional pollsters to prove me wrong.

McCain totally screwed the proverbial pooch on the Immigration Bill. That's the proximate cause of his recent calamity. Had he been less vocal in support of it, he'd still be raising money right now. This post never would have happened, and McCain would be running as a viable, Centrist Republican instead of people taking bets on when he's going to fold.

I received a survey in the mail today from the Heritage Foundation upon this very subject. I wonder if they will publish the results.

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

It pretty much undercuts your point, which is that people SAY they disagree with McCain but SECRETLY agree with McCain. In that case, all those people who feel some need to publicly contradict McCain should tell the pollster "no" but secretly be thinking "yes." I don't buy it.

Now it is entirely possible that that question would illicit a "yes" answer just based on the number of people infected with BDS. A question framed more neutrally, such as "Do you think the US government collects too little tax, not enough tax, or just the right amount of tax?," I bet "Not enough tax" would be a pretty small minority. Maybe 30%. And that chunk would be 95% Democrats. Anyone answering too much or not enough would be voicing support for the Bush tax cuts without admitting the agree with the evil Bushitler.

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

I'd like to see a good, zero-spin poll done on that particular question and see what the answers are. Someone should be able to write a very basic series of poll questions and give us that data. It's easy. It's a simple question. They could follow it up with a question like: "Are you a Democrat or a Republican" and just give everyone the basic answer. I'm all for short, to-the-point polling in this particular instance. And it will take less time on the telephone.


The really odd thing about what's happened to McCain is that Streiff and Mark Kilmer (who have never been supporters of a Joe-Biden partitioned Iraq) sit on the editorial ranks of this blog along with Leon Wolf, who is a staffer for Sam Brownback, who announced when I asked him the direct question at St. Anselm that John McCain's "military policy" in Iraq was doomed to failure and that's why he was cosponsoring a bill for a federalized Iraq with Joe Biden.

Now you tell me, what's going on here? Is Brownback right when he says that McCain is all wet? Because what McCain was saying sounds a lot like what Streiff has been saying all along. If I sound confused, maybe it's because the editors at this blog are completely confused as well. Are they torn between Rush Limbaugh and the Weekly Standard?

that all of the individual editors have clearly defined views but they don't all agree with each other? Radical, I know. But as I recall we have one declared Giuliani supporter (Streiff) one who has declared for Brownback (Leon) and others who are keeping their powder dry. (As I am, incidentally).

Have any other editors issued formal endorsements?

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

International Editor of

Leon has some kind of position with Brownback's campaign, which means he can't really go ripping on Brownback's cut-and-run Democrat-lite Iraq plan, even if he thinks it is ill advised. I think it is totally ridiculous, and I believe he only adopted it to differentiate himself from the pack.
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

I know they disagree; in fact I hope they disagree. But I'm torn as a blogger here because I *like* all of these people and I *know* that almost all of them are eventually going to be disappointed.

As much as I disagree with it, at least The Economist got its editorial act together as far as GWB is concerned in their latest issue: the general conclusion is that he's essentially wrong on everything. End of debate. From tax cuts to Abu Ghraib to the GWOT to Iraq and al-Qaeda, to Scooter Libby, Bush was Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong and wrong again. And The Economist is supposed to be one of the more *friendly* publications to this Presidency. To me, that casts virtually everything else that has been said here in the past few years into doubt.

Essentially, I am suffering from a crisis of trust. I no longer believe our Editors and I really don't believe our President, either.

I took that issue very powerfully because it basically contradicts everything that I've heard here at RS for the past 5 years. I expect the disagreements to continue.

Was your mistake. And because it's a magazine, it isn't even good for wrapping fish or lining bird cages. They are always trying to get me to subscribe to that rag. There's zero chance that will ever happen.
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

If I'm going to have to start dissing The Economist maybe it explains a little about why Adam C. and Pejman have been so quiet over the past couple of days. If you pick up their latest issue, you'll find that the Bush presidency is an unmitigated disaster on every level, from the use of the phrase "Global War On Terror" in which they cheekily refer to "terror" as a 'state of mind', to the 'cronyism' weakness that GWB showed as one of his three main weaknesses (the other two, presumably, being over-literal thinking and the fact that Cheney is really the President) when he pardoned Scooter Libby, to their -- get this: championing of the Washington Post's coverage of Bush's circumvention of Congress' wishes with his "signing statements" (which they condemn, echoing Ted Kennedy's statements about his 'imperial presidency') to Abu Ghraib and warrantless wiretapping and torture.

This past week's issue was absolutely amazing and unparalled in the time I've been reading E. They unloaded almost every single MoveOn talking point about GWB they could, placed it into print, and just essentially agreed with everything. The only regret they showed was that the Immigration bill didn't pass -- they described it as "visionary."

In my opinion, this means that W's presidency is effectively over. We haven't heard much from Adam C. recently in support of this President, and frankly I don't think we will from here on out. In my estimation, George W. Bush is now effectively useless as anything but a placeholder as our Chief Executive.

Until someone tells me why, precisely, I should be supporting him and his policies any longer, I consider the downside risk to be enormous. He's failed, officially.

Is the hero's treatment they give Chuck Schumer in their article about faulty products from China.

Stick a fork in this President. He's done.

Thank you, Kowalski, for your bravery in posting the comments, above.

And beyond that I think that the Republican Party needs to work double-time in the next year+ to identify the absolute strongest candidate that it can and win the next election. I think we can do that: I think we can take back the Congress and win the Presidency, but maybe we're going to have to face the pain of ripping this Presidency away from us in order to do so. In the meantime we need to win back an awful lot of hearts and minds, and we don't have much time. The sooner we face reality about this particular President, the better.

The Democratic leadership is misinterpreting and miscalculating public opnion on many issues. But, the painful thing, is that the Republican candidates need to distance themselves from the Bushies and the Neocons (not traditional Conservatives).

Getting upset about what's in the Economist makes about as much sense as getting upset about what's in the LA Times or what's on 60 minutes.
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

Too bad it only took 5 years to recognize the screamingly obvious

Here's the thing: I agree with a lot of the policies this administration has tried to accomplish: the problem is that they've failed. That's what is giving me the blues. GWB just wasn't the right guy to implement the things that needed to be done.

When you're the chief executive, and your policies fail, the pile-on begins. I don't intend to participate in it beyond this comment, but the fact is that I'm disappointed with this President's ability to get the job done. We gave him a lot of "political capital" to spend and he wasted a lot of it, in my view. That ticks me off; but it doesn't mean I would have wanted to see a Democrat in the office instead. It's just a regret that I have, and I think an honest regret.

Two good SCOTUS appointments and the tax cuts for starters. Those things were not failures. That alone puts him far ahead of a lot of his predecessors.

The war in Iraq, so far, isn't looking so hot, but I'm not sure anyone else could've done much better in this kind of environment. Politicians are so eager to put themselves in a position where they profit from the failures of the United States, and then push for failure whenever a chance presents itself. If there's a political point to be scored you take it, no matter what negative consequences there will be for the country.

As for him being done... sure, he is. He's a lame duck by anyone's definition. I'm not expecting any great things his last couple years in office. Everybody does. Reagan has a lousy last couple years too.
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

And I feel this way today because I also was really offended by what Erick did with that YouTube video of Mitt Romney yesterday, sponsored by the Massachusetts Democratic Party. It's fine if this blog wants to goose Fred Thompson and if Erick feels terrific because of his recent interviews, but I agree with another poster in that thread that RedState also sunk to a new low when it aired a Democrat hit piece on the front page here.

Romney has a lot of flaws, but even he didn't deserve that from RedState. It was _low_.

My father, who listens to politics as if it was created in the mouth of Rush Limbaugh, hates John McCain's guts. He couldn't be happier that he's going broke, he's practically doing a dance. And I mean, he really despises him. Rush Limbaugh has done a good job over the past eight years turning John McCain into a real villain, with help from John McCain, natch.

It's war -- so when can we start shooting back at the enemy Democrats?

He won't give up easy, but he'll eventually decide it's time to come home to Arizona for Christmas, rather than trudge around in New Hampshire.

Run like Reagan!

Some group will want McCain to stay in the race for unknown reasons. They will give him a large donation to keep him going for a few more months.

I don't have a logical reason, but it is the date my wife and I went on our first date, and it hasn't yet been taken.

After the January Primaries.

he will want it to be out on the slow news day and he will want to argue for at least a week and a half that he is still the number one candidate.

He will take some time to negotiate who he supports.

Eliminate the IRS and all payroll taxes! http://www.fairtax.org

I am assuming that IA and NH establish an early leader (my current bet is Romney) and then one or two others (probably Thompson & Giuliani) win a few states on Feb 5th. This leaves a strong probability of the race going all the way to the convention. That will, in turn, give anyone with delegates something to bargain with.

If McCain fails to win Arizona, it's over. If he wins Arizona and still hasn't managed a top three finish anywhere else, it's still over, but he has a small bargaining counter. If he wins Arizona and has a couple of other near misses he might focus on winning one or two other states to increase his bargaining power at the convention.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

International Editor of

That evening after he gets trounced in Florida.

Might make for a good birthday present :)

Anyway, was kinda surprised when CNN Headline News aired a clip of McCain blaming his fundraising problems partly on his immigration stance...

"The world is filled with violence. Because criminals carry guns, we decent, law-abiding citizens should also have guns. Otherwise they will win and the decent people will lose." - James Earl Jones

That would be the best birthday present I could have. :):)

McCain's was popular, but his campaign swings through Iowa were pathetic. Giuliani gave up because he knows that Iowans mostly hate New Yorkers. Romney has worked the hardest of the top tier. Romney doesn't look and sound like an Easterner, and there are so few Mormons, that Iowans don't know what the fuss is about. Although he won't get a a lot of support, I think that Tommie Thompson will do better than expected. Believe it or not, Gingrich has been in Iowa more than some of the big candidates.

Right now, I predict that McCain will be third or fourth, in Iowa. If McCain had a decent staff, they would have told him that Iowa is one of the states that recently had one of the largest influxes of Hispanic immigrants.

He won't back out until mid-February. In the same way he was repulsed and ashamed to be running a campaign that was spending money like a drunken sailor, the last thing he'll want to do is back out of an admittedly sinking campaign at the very time his clarion call is to "keep up the fight" in Iraq. He'll stick it out till the last possible moment and then withdraw gracefully and with honor on the 14th of Feb.

First campaign story of the new year . . .


He will try and stand tall during the Iraq report and debate of September. He'll then count on an influx of money to come in and bail him out because of it, and he will wait a month to see if that happens. It won't, and McCain will step aside on that day, October 15th.
By the way, his leaving the race hurts Rudy, and a large field is helping his campaign.......

Just in time for the Sunday morning rounds.


Anyone else fear that he might run as an independent JUST to screw over the Republican nominee because we had the gall not to nominate him instead? Guess it would be hard with no money but I think he would try.

I can't imagine where he'd get the $$$$$ short of George Soros. (spoiler money)

There's no way anybody could mount a credible campaign with public money.
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

after failing to break the top 6 in the Iowa straw poll

I already got that one...

The day after South Carolina (if I have my dates right). As a BONUS, if I win, I'll donate $250 to either MCLEF or Fisher House, krempasky's choice. Not really a matching donation, but close.

August 24th. I had to keep rereading the posts when I kept losing my date. I think it will be a Friday. I don't think I saw anyone with this one. I'm probably wrong. I just cant read it all again.

No good reason, except that I think he's likely to avoid admitting the writing on the wall for longer than he should, which argues for an October or November departure, and almost nobody else is picking November. I'd've voted for him if he were the nominee, but I think I'd rank him last in terms of preference on my list of the serious and semi-serious candidates (which is Rudy, Romney, Fred, and McCain for the serious and Huckabee and Hunter for the semi-serious; the others are just wasting our time).

My money is on March 10, 2008. By the way, I was the first on RedState to pronounce the McCain candidacy dead. When I figure out how to link to it I will, and again take full credit.

It's Friday right after...

Nov. 6, 2007: MSNBC hosts a Republican presidential debate at Iowa State University in Ames, IA

and is also symbolically after Election Day (same date).

Unless he comes in 1st in Iowa in some sort of poll. He drops then.

"Took the nickname Troll long before BlogTrolls existed..."

I'll choose August 14th.

Put me down for January 2009 - the day he's sworn in as POTUS. (Yes, I'm a die hard believer - and I don't give up on my guy even in rough seas).

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

International Editor of

Late enough that he knows his next quarter is bust. Near enough to the Petraeus report to tie that in. Has to be a Friday.

"I should be allowed to think" -- John Linnell

after the first round of primaries where he see's that there isn't any support for an egocentric meglomaniacal senator pretending he's the answer to the country's ills.

Basically, when he's done counting his cash (or better said, debts) but before his Q3 numbers will have to be posted publicly (and start leaking). No-one will look at your Q3 totals and Q4 outlook if you're already out.

On the morning after he lost the presidential election.

/Gustav Lundblad, radical centrist from Skåne, Sweden.
I support McCain 2008.

until he's lost at least two primaries. He really wants to be president and will do anything, go through anything to be president. I liked him 2000, now I don'tb but he's a fighter.

Redstate Network Login:
(lost password?)

©2008 Eagle Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved. Legal, Copyright, and Terms of Service