Iowa Independant Managing Editor: Ron Paul could win Iowa

[Taco John]

October 4th, 2007 — 6:54 pm

Ron Paul Could Win Iowa

I’m somewhat surprised to be saying this, and it took me a while to come to this conclusion, but I think — given the right set of circumstances — Republican Rep. Ron Paul could win the Iowa Caucuses. I’m not going to say it’s likely, but it isn’t impossible.

Here’s why it could happen:

Huge fundraising: Rep. Paul’s third quarter fundraising was astonishing. If he spends it right (and so far his campaign has proven its ability to stretch every single dollar), he could have enough direct mail and paid media to look like just as “real” a candidate as any others in the eyes of Iowa Republicans.

Good organization: The Paul campaign recently announced that it had brought on veteran Iowa Republican Dr. Drew Ivers as its new Iowa chairman. Ivers has worked in Iowa GOP politics since the Reagan campaign, and he ran Iowa presidential campaigns for Pat Robertson and Pat Buchanan. Asked what he was planning to do to change the Paul campaign in Iowa, Ivers smartly said (http://www.iowaindependent.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=1203), “the main difference between our strategies is that the old Iowa campaign chair] used a traditional media campaign, whereas I intend to use more of a grass-roots, on-the-ground strategy.” That’s how you win the Iowa Caucuses.

Splintered electorate: Because the evangelicals who dominate the Republican caucuses seem to be splitting between a number of different candidates, Ron Paul’s — ahem — “uniqueness” could serve him quite well. In particular, Paul is the only Republican candidate with a strong anti-war message, and survey results show that half of likely Republican caucus goers agree with him (http://cmondisplay.com/2007/08/23/51-of-republican-caucus-goers-support-iraq-withdrawal-within-six-months/). With a field this large, Paul may only need support of half of the anti-war Republicans — which would represent 25% of the total electorate — to win a plurality of delegates.

Low expectations: The media will not expect Rep. Paul to place in the Iowa Caucuses, to say nothing of whether they think he can win. The three points listed above are intended to demonstrate that he could come in first here with some luck and elbow grease, but it is important to remember that a second or third place finish would be enough to call it a “win.” Just by placing, Ron Paul would get the Iowa bump.


http://cmondisplay.com/2007/10/04/ron-paul-could-win-iowa/

[Taco John]

August 23rd, 2007 — 12:25 pm
51% of (Iowa) Republican Caucus Goers Support Iraq Withdrawal Within Six Months

Greg Sargent at TPM Election Central noticed this nugget in the latest Strategic Vision poll of likely caucus goers:


4. Do you favor a withdrawal of all United States military from Iraq within the next six months? (Republicans Only)
Yes 51%
No 39%
Undecided 10%


Frankly, the number does not surprise me. Candidates who have more hard-line positions on the war avoid wearing their positions on their sleeves when they are in town, and I think that while immigration hurt McCain here, his outspoken support of the surge caused him just as much trouble over the past six months. Iowa Republicans are social conservatives, not hawks.

Also worth noting — and this is something Greg Sargent misses in his write-up — is that the poll screen intended only to include caucus going Republicans, not Republicans as a whole, and the results may have been different had the screen been wider. Still, though, among the most influential group of Republicans in the state, support for withdrawal is high.

http://cmondisplay.com/2007/08/23/51-of-republican-caucus-goers-support-iraq-withdrawal-within-six-months/

[Iowanian]

Taco is as bad as Jake and Jaz.....

Your crap is to the point I wouldn't want to even consider Ron Paul, just because an overzealous whack job like you is on his balls.

I don't see Paul winning Iowa.

[Hoover]

Iowanian I'll go a little farther and say there is no way in hell Ron Paul wins the Iowa Caucuses.

A couple points.

1. Money needs to equal staff in Iowa if you want to have a chance on caucus night. While I do think that Drew Ivers is a good hire for the Paul campaign, he only has three months to organize the state.

2. Candidate Commitment. While McCain, Giuliani, Romney, Thompson, Huckabee, Brownback, and Tancredo have visited most of Iowa's 99 counties, Ron Paul has only been to Iowa a handful of times. Willing the Iowa Caucuses is like passing a class in college, you just need to show up. Ron Paul isn't doing that.

3. A very small universe of people attend the Iowa Caucuses. I think in 2000 only 90,000 people attended the Republican Caucuses, that 90,000 is made up of the hard core activist of the Republican Party. 90k is a small number and could be influenced by a large turnout of new caucus goers, but it hard to get these new people to actually go to their Caucus site on a Cold January night at 7 p.m. You don't just pop in a vote, its a meeting and can be intimidating.

I think Iowa is wide open but time is running out. Here is how I see it in Iowa.

1. Mitt Romney - He is always here, and is organizing on the ground. He doesn't have it locked up because Iowa activist don't trust him on the social issues.

2. Rudy Giuliani. People always like to back a winner, and since he is the national frontrunner I think he will get some votes. The propblem is I give him this position by default. I don't see the Giuliani campaign oing any major ground effort here in Iowa.

3. Mike Huckabee. Social Conservatives dominate caucus attendees. Romney and Giuliani will not be exceptable by many, I think Huckabee gets the majority of these people.

4. Fred Thompson. Like Giuliani people like a celeb. The problem is he just isn't catching on in Iowa and doesn't have the staff in the state to get it done.

5. McCain got 5000 votes in 2000, I think he will have some support on Caucus Night but not much.

6. Ron Paul. Has a ton of potential, but he needs to do so much more if he is going to do well on caucus night. I have seen no sign of this.

7a. Sam Brownbak
7b. Tom Tancredo

[oldandslow]

Iowanian I'll go a little farther and say there is no way in hell Ron Paul wins the Iowa Caucuses.

A couple points.

1. Money needs to equal staff in Iowa if you want to have a chance on caucus night. While I do think that Drew Ivers is a good hire for the Paul campaign, he only has three months to organize the state.

2. Candidate Commitment. While McCain, Giuliani, Romney, Thompson, Huckabee, Brownback, and Tancredo have visited most of Iowa's 99 counties, Ron Paul has only been to Iowa a handful of times. Willing the Iowa Caucuses is like passing a class in college, you just need to show up. Ron Paul isn't doing that.

3. A very small universe of people attend the Iowa Caucuses. I think in 2000 only 90,000 people attended the Republican Caucuses, that 90,000 is made up of the hard core activist of the Republican Party. 90k is a small number and could be influenced by a large turnout of new caucus goers, but it hard to get these new people to actually go to their Caucus site on a Cold January night at 7 p.m. You don't just pop in a vote, its a meeting and can be intimidating.

I think Iowa is wide open but time is running out. Here is how I see it in Iowa.

1. Mitt Romney - He is always here, and is organizing on the ground. He doesn't have it locked up because Iowa activist don't trust him on the social issues.

2. Rudy Giuliani. People always like to back a winner, and since he is the national frontrunner I think he will get some votes. The propblem is I give him this position by default. I don't see the Giuliani campaign oing any major ground effort here in Iowa.

3. Mike Huckabee. Social Conservatives dominate caucus attendees. Romney and Giuliani will not be exceptable by many, I think Huckabee gets the majority of these people.

4. Fred Thompson. Like Giuliani people like a celeb. The problem is he just isn't catching on in Iowa and doesn't have the staff in the state to get it done.

5. McCain got 5000 votes in 2000, I think he will have some support on Caucus Night but not much.

6. Ron Paul. Has a ton of potential, but he needs to do so much more if he is going to do well on caucus night. I have seen no sign of this.

7a. Sam Brownbak
7b. Tom Tancredo


Very well done, sir. I expect the results to be much like this as well :clap:

[Taco John]

I don't know enough about Iowa politics, but I'm betting that this managing editor knows a little something. I don't expect neoconservative backers in Iowa to take this seriously... and in fact, I hope that you don't. We need your types to continue to be uninspired by the depth of the field.

By the way, Hoover... Your post was very encouraging from a Ron Paul voter's perspective. You did a good job of explaining why Ron Paul has a good shot.

[recxjake]

Ron Paul has a very strong group of core supporters. I don't think he will win Iowa, but 3rd, or 4th is very possible. Any Republican that finished behind him is done.

[Hoover]

I don't know enough about Iowa politics, but I'm betting that this managing editor knows a little something. I don't expect neoconservative backers in Iowa to take this seriously... and in fact, I hope that you don't. We need your types to continue to be uninspired by the depth of the field.

By the way, Hoover... Your post was very encouraging from a Ron Paul voter's perspective. You did a good job of explaining why Ron Paul has a good shot.
As I said its wide open.

[Taco John]

Ron Paul has a very strong group of core supporters. I don't think he will win Iowa, but 3rd, or 4th is very possible. Any Republican that finished behind him is done.



We would be happy to take third in Iowa.

[recxjake]

We would be happy to take third in Iowa.

I wouldn't be suprised if you do.

If it was held today....

1. Mitt (he bought it)
2. Rudy
3. Ron
4. Fred
5. Huckabee
6. McCain
7. Tancredo
8. Brownback
9. Keyes

[recxjake]

Here's a new poll out yesterday for Iowa... the thing is though... who will actually turn out... Ron Paul people turn out.

Poll Watch: InsiderAdvantage/Majority Opinion GOP Iowa Caucus
InsiderAdvantage/Majority Opinion GOP Iowa Caucus

Mitt Romney 24%
Rudy Giuliani 16%
Mike Huckabee 13%
Fred Thompson 13%
John McCain 10%
Sam Brownback 5%
Ron Paul 4%
Duncan Hunter 2%
No Opinion 13%
Survey of 1,339 likely Republican caucus voters was conducted October 2-3. The margin of error is +/- 3 percentage points.

[Iowanian]

I know enough about Iowa Politics to Know that Hoover knows what the hell is going on in the trenches, but don't let his facts cloud your autostimulation session.


My Vote is in play 100%.


I don't know enough about Iowa politics, but I'm betting that this managing editor knows a little something. I don't expect neoconservative backers in Iowa to take this seriously... and in fact, I hope that you don't. We need your types to continue to be uninspired by the depth of the field.

By the way, Hoover... Your post was very encouraging from a Ron Paul voter's perspective. You did a good job of explaining why Ron Paul has a good shot.

[Taco John]

I know enough about Iowa Politics to Know that Hoover knows what the hell is going on in the trenches, but don't let his facts cloud your autostimulation session.


My Vote is in play 100%.



I don't have any doubt that Hoover knows what's going on in the trenches. His post, though, only confirms what the editor who wrote the original peice said: Iowa is very much in play for Paul. Does he have work to do there? Absolutely. But the thing about Ron Paul is the power of his message. There are plenty of conservatives in Iowa who are interested in hearing a message about cutting taxes, eliminating the IRS, reducing foriegn spending, and giving people more control of their lives.

Ron Paul isn't going to need the kind of time that liberals like Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani are going to need in order to sell their messages. Ron's message combined with his record in congress sells itself. That's how he's gone from relative obscurity, to being able to raise a million dollars in a week from individual contributors.

[SBK]

Taco is as bad as Jake and Jaz.....



Yeah, I'm almost thinking he's worse, and I kinda like Paul.

[Iowanian]

I like some of Paul's ideas......

But its kind of like thinking about taking a drink of Chocolate Milk that looks tasty, and having Taco wipe a booger on the cup rim.


I am not a fan of Romney Or Rudy. No one is really standing out to me....if I like a candidate on 1 issue, I'm as against them for another.

[Taco John]

I like some of Paul's ideas......

But its kind of like thinking about taking a drink of Chocolate Milk that looks tasty, and having Taco wipe a booger on the cup rim.


I am not a fan of Romney Or Rudy. No one is really standing out to me....if I like a candidate on 1 issue, I'm as against them for another.



If you're not going to like a candidate because I like him, you're going to end up not liking any of the good candidates. :)

You probably don't want to vote for Ron Paul anyway. He's going to end the war in Iraq, and work towards getting the nation off of welfare. That includes farming welfare.

[SBK]

That includes farming welfare.

That will not play in Iowa. My wife's grandparents are always telling me about all the gov't money they get on their farm. I always want to tell him if the market were allowed into the farming business the price of corn would have risen in the last 50 years, but he's too old for me to get into a debate with. He loves getting paid for growing grass.

[Taco John]

That will not play in Iowa. My wife's grandparents are always telling me about all the gov't money they get on their farm. I always want to tell him if the market were allowed into the farming business the price of corn would have risen in the last 50 years, but he's too old for me to get into a debate with. He loves getting paid for growing grass.


I'm not sure what would be a better net gain for them: farming welfare, or income tax abolishment.

[Taco John]

I like some of Paul's ideas......

But its kind of like thinking about taking a drink of Chocolate Milk that looks tasty, and having Taco wipe a booger on the cup rim.


I am not a fan of Romney Or Rudy. No one is really standing out to me....if I like a candidate on 1 issue, I'm as against them for another.



I just can't help myself... I love this man:

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/LH0pFuoJt3I&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="353"></embed>


I have never been so excited about a politician in all my life.

[irishjayhawk]

I just can't help myself... I love this man:

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/LH0pFuoJt3I&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="353"></embed>


I have never been so excited about a politician in all my life.

Great video. I'm a fan of the adult swim like titles and commentary. I don't know why, but it always works for me.

[patteeu]

Here's a new poll out yesterday for Iowa... the thing is though... who will actually turn out... Ron Paul people turn out.

Poll Watch: InsiderAdvantage/Majority Opinion GOP Iowa Caucus
InsiderAdvantage/Majority Opinion GOP Iowa Caucus

Mitt Romney 24%
Rudy Giuliani 16%
Mike Huckabee 13%
Fred Thompson 13%
John McCain 10%
Sam Brownback 5%
Ron Paul 4%
Duncan Hunter 2%
No Opinion 13%
Survey of 1,339 likely Republican caucus voters was conducted October 2-3. The margin of error is +/- 3 percentage points.

Damn. Ron Paul owns Duncan Hunter.

[SBK]

I'm not sure what would be a better net gain for them: farming welfare, or income tax abolishment.

The income tax abolishment would be far better, but you'd never convince a typical farmer of that. Free money is free money. :rolleyes:

[a1na2]

Until it happens, how really gives a rats a$$?

[SBK]

Until it happens, how really gives a rats a$$?

How? Typically you'd have to kill the rat before you cut it's ass off. Then you could give it I suppose.

[Iowanian]

Good.

Hopefully, he'll then light a large brush fire and chase all of the illegals back home, taking the burden of all of those Mexican Illegals off of our tax rolls.

None of that changes the fact that you've gone batshit nuts, as bad as jaz, probably worse than rexjake. At least he's young and might not know any better.



You probably don't want to vote for Ron Paul anyway. He's going to end the war in Iraq, and work towards getting the nation off of welfare. That includes farming welfare.

[SNR]

I'd prefer Ron concentrate his efforts in New Hampshire. That's his plan, anyway. Iowa is pretty doubtful, since he's not gunning for that state.

[Taco John]

Good.

Hopefully, he'll then light a large brush fire and chase all of the illegals back home, taking the burden of all of those Mexican Illegals off of our tax rolls.

None of that changes the fact that you've gone batshit nuts, as bad as jaz, probably worse than rexjake. At least he's young and might not know any better.


You're absolutely right. I've gone coo coo for a candiate who I think is going to get America back on the same page:

http://ettc.lrhsd.org/archives/Constitution2.jpg


I'm caaaaaraaaaayzeeee!

[Jenson71]

Taco, do you think it's actually possible to get America back to the original days? Or is it just a noble goal to fight for, although unrealistic?

[Adept Havelock]

Taco, do you think it's actually possible to get America back to the original days? Or is it just a noble goal to fight for, although unrealistic?

I can't speak for Taco, but I'm getting the impression Ron Paul has a great deal in common with Godot.

[Jenson71]

I can't speak for Taco, but I'm getting the impression Ron Paul has a great deal in common with Godot.

Hmm, I don't understand the reference.

[Taco John]

Yes. I think that in the end, people are going to vote for their own personal best interests.

The term "original days" I have a problem with. It's a different era we're in. That being said, I absolutely think that it's possible to get back to the rule of law, where the government is scared of the people, and not the other way around. The only way to do that is to dismantle the imperial presidency.

The media is pushing back though. It's not going to be easy. Right now, if you watch the networks, they want to tell you that the nomination process is over before it's even begun, and it's Rudy vs. Hillary. Don't believe it. That's not going to be the race. It's going to be much more complicated than that, especially once Ron Paul starts spending money. Ron Paul is going to split the Republican ticket in half, and Rudy's viability will eventually be called into question, because if Ron Paul can split the Republican ticket with an anti-war stance, what chance does Rudy have against Hillary?

There are not enough pro-war Republicans in America for Rudy to carry the ticket. It's a simple matter of math. A vote for Rudy will be in effect a vote for Hillary. Rudy is going to be the Ralph Nader of the Republican ticket, not Ron Paul.

[Jenson71]

Also, how come Ron Paul wants to get rid of the CIA? Don't we need the CIA these days? Maybe it could just be reformed?

[Adept Havelock]

Hmm, I don't understand the reference.


"Waiting For Godot" is a play by Samuel Beckett. It's about two people waiting for "Godot", who is (IMO) a "messiah" type who will fix everything that is wrong when he arrives. There's a great deal more to the play, but that's a nutshell version.

By the end of the play, he still hasn't shown up. It's questionable if he exists in the first place.

We know Ron Paul exists, yet I'm often reminded of the two main characters (Vladimir and Estragon) when seeing our resident Paulites discuss their candidate of choice.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waiting_for_Godot

[Jenson71]

Ah, I see. I thought it was a political pundit.

[Taco John]

Also, how come Ron Paul wants to get rid of the CIA? Don't we need the CIA these days? Maybe it could just be reformed?


Ron Paul is critical of the CIA because it's out of control. Rather than gather intelligence, it tries to reorganize the world through covert operations, the end result being the creation of more enemies for the United States, not less enemies.

This is not intelligence gathering:
http://www.iranchamber.com/history/coup53/coup53p1.php

[Adept Havelock]

Ah, I see. I thought it was a political pundit.

I wouldn't object if Al Franken, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Randi Rhodes, etc. were as verbose as Godot.

[Jenson71]

Ron Paul is critical of the CIA because it's out of control. Rather than gather intelligence, it tries to reorganize the world through covert operations, the end result being the creation of more enemies for the United States, not less enemies.

This is not intelligence gathering:
http://www.iranchamber.com/history/coup53/coup53p1.php

So what's Paul's take on an agency that collects foreign intelligence?

[Jenson71]

I wouldn't object if Al Franken, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Randi Rhodes, etc. were as verbose as Godot.

I can't stand Sean Hannity. I don't mind Rush too much, the other two I don't know anything about except that Al Franken was on SNL and wrote Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them.

[BucEyedPea]

Ron Paul, in one of the debates, did agree we needed to still have intelligence while also making a case that we had to have intelligent and sane analysis of that intelligence. The CIA has had corruption in it.

[Jenson71]

Ron Paul, in one of the debates, did agree we needed to still have intelligence while also making a case that we had to have intelligent and sane analysis of that intelligence. The CIA has had corruption in it.

So do we know if Paul would work for a major reform in the CIA or would he just build up a new one, or try to?

[Taco John]

So do we know if Paul would work for a major reform in the CIA or would he just build up a new one, or try to?



I'm not versed on his strategy for intelligence collection. I just know that he thinks it is a legitimate role of government, but that the current bureaucracy for doing such is bloated and inefficient.

[BucEyedPea]

So do we know if Paul would work for a major reform in the CIA or would he just build up a new one, or try to?
I haven't read any specific statements as to what he'd do. Most interviews and questions that I've seen haven't brought this up for him to answer. But one debate, and I don't remember which one, I recall him saying what I posted above. I think it was that heated exchange with Huckelberry Finn. :p

His statement there does seem to imply he'd just do something differently.