No Runny Eggs

If you believe the presstitute and Politico meme, you would think so. Well, get ready to eat that meme. Erick at RedState reports that Thompson raised a cool $1.8 million since December 12, and yes, that includes that $260,000+ from the combo blogburst/fill the red pick-up last week.

TownHall has a friendly pool going on the results of the Iowa caucii. They’re calling for what percentages the Big 6 Republicans (Giuliani, Huckabee, McCain, Paul, Romney and Thompson) and the top 3 Democrats (as well as their names; not necessarily Clinton, Edwards and Obama) will get. Since I didn’t want to crowd the thread with my explanations, I’ll do so here. As usual, I’ll start with the Dems because I have a lot less to say about them. Also, much of my Pubbie analysis will come from both Jim Geraghty’s and my analyses of the 2000 Republican caucus final polls and actual results.

Democrats

John Edwards – 30%
Barack Obama – 29%
Hillary Clinton – 28%

What is there to say but things are pretty much evenly divided. The second-choice factor will break to the third wheel.

Republicans

Mike Huckabee – 26% – Pollsters consistently undervalue the evangelical factor, and even though Huckabee is starting to bust, it hasn’t completely gone away from him yet.
Mitt Romney – 24% – He’s the closest thing in this election to the “compassionate conservative” that George Bush was in 2000. That’s worth a couple points off the top.
Fred Thompson – 19% – The pollsters have historically missed somebody entirely in Iowa. Thompson is the closest in ideology to that person in 2000, Steve Forbes. Yeah, I know, Forbes endorsed Giuliani; I haven’t figured that one out yet.
Ron Paul – 10% – The caucus is all about turnout. That works both for and against the Paul campaign, as the “false-flaggers” are going to be at the Dem caucus. However, a not-insigificant number of Iowans like their Nuts; just ask Alan Keyes about his 2000 run.
John McCain – 9% – Ignore all of the “McCain is surging” hype, at least for Iowa. Even though McCain has put some time in and for a time had kissed Iowan hindquarters, he has reverted to type, and so will the Iowans.
Duncan Hunter – 5% – Yes, you heard me right; Duncan Hunter will beat Rudy Giuliani in Iowa. The other reason is because illegal immigration is an issue in Iowa, and Giuliani is on the wrong side of that.
Rudy Giuliani – 5% – The main reason why Giuliani will finish behind Hunter in Iowa is Giuliani put in essentially no time in Iowa.
Alan Keyes – 2% – This isn’t 2000, and there is another Nut running this time.

Revisions/extensions (1:03 pm 1/3/2008) – Let’s see if this will get pinged/tracked back to Right Wing News’ prediction recap

Get to your local Republican caucus tonight before 7, preferably 15 30 minutes or so early, and vote for Fred Thompson.

Revisions/extensions (11:40 am 1/3/2008) – PCD points out that it’s best to arrive earlier than I originally suggested.

Revisions/extensions part 2 (1:09 pm 1/3/2008) – Russ from Winterset has your precinct captain speech over at Ace of Spades HQ.

Jim Geraghty steps back into the time machine and pulls out the last 2000 poll numbers as well as the actual results:

Des Moines Register – George W. Bush 43%, Steve Forbes 20%, Alan Keyes 8%, John McCain 8%, Gary Bauer 6% (with scattering and undecided 15%)
University of Iowa – Bush 55%, Forbes 12%, Keyes 9%, Bauer 8%, McCain 5% (scattering/undecided 11%)
Research 2000 – Bush 46%, Forbes 23%, Keyes 9%, McCain 7%, Bauer 7% (scattering/undecided 8%)
LA Times – Bush 43%, Forbes 25%, Keyes 10%, McCain 8%, Bauer 7% (scattering/undecided 7%)
Average poll – Bush 46.75%, Forbes 20.00%, Keyes 9.00%, McCain 7.75%, Bauer 6.25% (scattering/undecided 10.25%)
Actual results – Bush 43%, Forbes 30%, Keyes 14%, Bauer 9%, McCain 5% (scattering/rounding error 1%)

Geraghty asks whether Huckabee or Keyes 2008 is the closest one to Keyes 2000. I’ll submit Huckabee is closer to Bauer (Gary, or perhaps Graem, definitely not Jack) than Keyes 2000 mainly because Bauer was that year’s “evangelical” candidate, and Keyes 2008 is a complete non-factor. The real question is who will be this year’s Forbes and 2000 Keyes, or whether there are (Geraghty says the pollsters are better than they were, but also points to Zogby’s 2004 Dem failure).

I’ll submit that Thompson is this year’s Forbes, with Paul being this year’s Keyes 2000 (take that whichever way you want; forehanded or backhanded).

Regarding McCain, Geraghty notes that he isn’t skipping Iowa this time around. I counter that his final poll numbers also reflect that, and once again, he will underperform because of the built-in biases.