The only evidence you have that they were dumb is rabid results orientation and an assumption that this happens all the time without being able to provide a single example.

lol wookie, you have already conceded that it is not uncommon for political operatives to leave political campaigns, and that the hiring of these operatives is generally not newsworthy. So just because there aren't a bunch of stories about this happening does not make it uncommon. Are you seriously saying that you think that political operatives who leave a campaign are not going to try to get hired by another campaign in the middle of an election season? That these political operatives looking to get hired by another campaign would be UNPRECEDENTED AND UNPREDICTABLE?

In the one feeble example you gave, Terry Nelson and John Weaver were not rehired by any other campaigns.

Also, everyone but you ITT agreed that top campaign advisers leaving to start a new campaign would be shocking and unprecedented. Meanwhile, you keep assuming your way to an alleged victory.

SHOW ME EVIDENCE THEY WEREN'T REHIRED

mjkidd: can't you at least wait until Perry enters the race before claiming victory here?

Wookie, if they weren't hired by another campaign, why do you think they weren't? Was it because they didn't want to be hired or because no one wanted to hire them? It seems overwhelmingly likely that it is the latter rather than the former. But if the job market for political operatives is as tight as you seem to be claiming (which you've showed no evidence for, surprising since we all know you're a MAN OF EMPIRICAL DATA) then why wouldn't they get hired by another campaign?

So it seems that two of your claims are contradictory. Either it wouldn't be extraordinary for a political operative leaving a campaign to get hired by another campaign or all the good political operatives are not already taken.

That's not really my point though. I'm just saying that for Wookie to credibly say that Perry would be at a huge organizational/monetary/personnel disadvantage if he decides to run in early June he would need to have a knowledge of Republican electoral politics that he almost certainly does not have.

Santorum was on Meet The Press today. Said on national television that he felt a raped victim who is impregnated by her rapist should be forced to have that rapist's baby. I understand that abortion is hardly a central issue of the upcoming election, but how can any rational, fair-minded person take anyone who believes that remotely seriously?

Rick Santorum: strong advocate for father's rights

I can't prove a negative. However, Wikipedia's articles on the McCain campaign, on the whole GOP primary, and on the campaign manager, as well as the NYT article cited by the wiki articles covering their resignations, make no mention of them joining up with anyone else.

C'mon now. The answer to this "contradiction" is right there in how you pose it. The market for good people is tight. The only people who abandon a campaign before it'd be too late to sign on with a new campaign are the people too incompetent to lead a credible campaign.

In order to convince me that Perry can rehire these guys and then cruise to the nomination, you have to convince me that he'd cruise to the nomination on the backs of the guys who ran one of the most miserable campaign roll outs of a prominent political figure in modern history.

Wasn't the whole point that Newt wasn't listening to them to begin with?

No, I say that because guys like Fred Thompson who generate a ton of buzz, and get talked into joining the race late have shown to lack organization and fund-raising ability

There's a term for it (despite your singular piece of anecdotal evidence) ... it's called a white knight

Much more intellectually consistent than the typical "abortion is murder unless it would make me look like a dick, then it's not". It's either murder or it's not. The fetus doesn't know how it got there.

lol if these guys are such bums then how is it important at all that they are now available? Surely there are other bums that Perry could get to run his campaign. Also, could you show some empirical data on like how much above replacement value say Romney's guys are compared to the guys that just left Gingrich's campaign? It's probably on one of those wiki pages you mentioned reading.

And I'm not saying and never have said that Perry is going to cruise to the nomination, not sure where you're getting that strawman from. I'm saying that, despite you having skimmed multiple wikipedia pages on the subject, you're not knowledgeable enough about what is involved in the election process to be able to lol lol lol lol at the prospect of Perry assembling a credible campaign.

FFS EARLY JUNE ISN'T LATE

Plus as Chris Wallace said 'You don't think the Gov of Texas can raise money?'

Why don't you read some wikipedia articles on when winning or at least credible campaigns have gotten started. It might be instructive.

I mean, if Republican nomination campaigns are so unknowably complex that there's no way I could predict an uphill battle, then how do you know that early June isn't late?

Bill Clinton announced his candidacy in October of 1991.

Yeah, pretty much.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes...lling-part-ii/

When all those peoiple bow out, sure, I'll take Perry very seriously

Meanwhile, according to the latest polls on RCP, Perry is polling in the 5% range with ~Herman Cain levels of name recognition.

How about, the economy sucks and the Republicans aren't the incumbent party? IMO You are vastly overestimating how much the average voters knows or cares about what politicians are actually doing. Presidential elections are generally decided on by a small minority of voters, in a small minority of states. Those votes seem to be based mainly on how those particular voters "feel" on election day.

lol wookie "find me an example of someone entering the race late as a credible candidate"

"Bill Clinton won after he announced his candidacy in October."

"That doesn't count, find me a real one"