PDA

View Full Version : Iowa: The Perfect Outcome For Ron Paul


KILLER_CLOWN
01-04-2008, 08:48 AM
Things turned out well for Ron Paul in Iowa and here is why.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by CT Johnson
(Libertarian)
Things could have not turned out better for Congressman Ron Paul in Iowa for the Republican presidential race. Let's face it, at this time Ron Paul cannot yet win a one on one or three way contest in the Republican race. He is by far one of the most spectacular candidates to run in the Republican field in a long time. However, he is not some willy nilly thirty second soundbite politician. People need to become educated in more depth to understand his well thought out, solid, and logical positions. For many Republicans they have not had enough exposure yet. It is a long, hard, and tiring process to educate in depth the conservative electorate about traditional conservative principles and values.

Tonight just bought Ron Paul even more time to get out his message and to still place well in all of the upcoming states. Iowa will keep Huckabee in the race. Romney wasn't going to be exiting any time soon. Fred Thompson was thought to be dead, but just had new life breathed into his campaign. McCain was also thought to be dead, but got a rebound. And of course Iowa was irrelevant to Giuliani as he will stay in the race. Only Duncan Hunter may drop, but his support base doesn't seem likely to be a factor anywhere.

What does this all mean to Ron Paul. Well, Ron Paul has shown that in an ultra-religious conservative state that he can pull 10% of the vote...double digits. It has shown that he can pull close to the well known, stalwart of the Republican establishment, warhorse John McCain. He is literally within spitting distance of third place in a state that is not tailored to him. A state where he would not promise ongoing farm subsidies. This is a huge feat...one that cannot be discounted. What is more important though is that all of the neoconservative candidates will stay in the race with this outcome with maybe the exception of Duncan Hunter. This is very good for Ron Paul. Like I said earlier, at this time Ron Paul cannot win in a one on one or three way race...yet. This Iowa scenario ensures that Ron Paul will face a divided neoconservative field. I cannot overstate how good this is from a strategic standpoint. It gives Ron Paul time to continue to spread the message and gain more and more support while the neoconservative vote is split.

Come New Hampshire, Ron Paul will likely place in the top three. Romney, McCain, and Ron Paul will show well. Ron Paul has the funds, with more than $19.5 million raised in the 4th quarter, and is in for the long haul. As has been discussed across the internet...this may end up being a brokered convention...a very long and hard race. The more face time and the longer Ron Paul stays in the race the better. Unlike Ron Paul, many of the candidates cannot and will not show well in all states. Ron Paul's support is nationwide and he has the money, nationwide support, and fundraising ability to go the distance.

Folks...this is a marathon...not a sprint. Watch and see...the Ron Paul movement will continue to grow. The message will continue to spread. The people of Iowa are our fellow citizens, but they are not the end all. Their voice is important, but only a part of the voice of America. As Lou Dobbs mentioned on the eve of the Iowa election...there are only three populist candidates, and might I add Revolutionary candidates, that are for the middle class...and Ron Paul is the only Republican standing up for the average middle class and low income American! Not Huckabee...but Ron Paul.

http://www.nolanchart.com/article913.html

Keep up the good fight peeps! ;)

BucEyedPea
01-04-2008, 08:58 AM
Ron Paul won among independent Republicans@ 29 percent.

McCain @ 23 percent of independents' votes
Romney @ 19 percent
Huckabee @ 17 percent.

Cochise
01-04-2008, 09:33 AM
Well, since the RCP average was just venerated last night even in a state with a caucus format that supposedly favored Paul more than a straight primary, let's post the current New Hampshire RCP average:

McCain 31
Romney 30
Giuliani 10
Huckabee 9.5
Paul 7
Thompson 2

So, we can expect that Huckabee might get a small bounce from Iowa, and Paul might be able to finish in a best-case on top of a three way race for third. But if you score 11, nobody is going to see you as a threat to two guys scoring 30s.

This article is just patently absurd. To say that "things could not have turned out better" just flushes any credibility for what you say following that. He only finished ahead of someone who totally skipped Iowa and other than New Hampshire, if there was any state that could start a wave for him it was Iowa.

Things don't look better for him in South Carolina, either, with his numbers in a solid 6th place, and 5th (Rudy) is at 12 while Paul is around 6. But even Rudy has a longshot path to the nomination, since he's currently leading in Florida. After New Hampshire, he's going to be polling in most all states probably at the bottom of the candidates who are still in the race. That's not going to build momentum or keep the money coming in.

Despite what honks say, Ron Paul really needed a strong third in a favorable contest in Iowa to help put him in this race, and he didn't get it.

Taco John
01-04-2008, 10:41 AM
Despite what honks say, Ron Paul really needed a strong third in a favorable contest in Iowa to help put him in this race, and he didn't get it.


I think there's no doubt that third place would have been better than us than fifth. But you're absolutely wrong that we "needed" a third place finish. We needed a double digit finish, and that's what we got. We did what we needed to do to put him in this race.

The true bottom line for us is that this morning, more people are being introduced to Ron Paul today than there were yesterday. *That's* what we needed.

Cochise
01-04-2008, 11:17 AM
The true bottom line for us is that this morning, more people are being introduced to Ron Paul today than there were yesterday. *That's* what we needed.

Fifth out of six is hardly what a longshot candidate needs in an early primary... particularly when #6 pulled out of the state.

Other than New Hampshire, which might even be a stretch, I don't see Paul having an opportunity to finish in the top three again. He might falter there after this underwhelming Iowa result. He will probably beat Thompson next week, but until then he still hasn't finished ahead of anyone.

Taco John
01-04-2008, 11:27 AM
...except for Giuliani...

You can try to take that away from us... but you cant.

I'll agree that fifth wasn't ideal for us... But all this fatalism over it is hardly convincing. More people are going to learn today about Ron Paul than knew about him two days ago. That's what matters to us in Iowa.

Baby Lee
01-04-2008, 11:32 AM
He is by far one of the most spectacular candidates to run in the Republican field in a long time. However, he is not some willy nilly thirty second soundbite politician. People need to become educated in more depth to understand his well thought out, solid, and logical positions. For many Republicans they have not had enough exposure yet. It is a long, hard, and tiring process to educate in depth the conservative electorate about traditional conservative principles and values.
Seriously, can no Paulite see the grating condescencion of these kinds of remarks?

There's little in politics less attractive than 'if you were smarter you'd see things my way.'

NewChief
01-04-2008, 11:36 AM
Seriously, can no Paulite see the grating condescencion of these kinds of remarks?

There's little in politics less attractive than 'if you were smarter you'd see things my way.'

There's also the irony that many Ron Paul supporters have very little clue, imo, on what RP really stands for. All they see is a guy who wants to get out of the war, lacks the slime of a beltway insider, and is sticking it to "the man." All the pseudo-hippies out there supporting him don't have a clue about the implications of his free market ideology.


That being said, congrats to RP for his results last night. I think it was a respectable showing, and I actually like the candidate fairly well even if I disagree with about 75% of his platform.

Cochise
01-04-2008, 11:36 AM
...except for Giuliani...

You can try to take that away from us... but you cant.

I'll agree that fifth wasn't ideal for us... But all this fatalism over it is hardly convincing. More people are going to learn today about Ron Paul than knew about him two days ago. That's what matters to us in Iowa.

You guy finished ahead of a guy who got 3%. Tout that as some kind of revolution if you want to I guess.

I guess Romney could then also claim his day was a huge success, because even though he had a disappointing number when it was all over, and wasn't close to beating his real opponent in the race, he did beat Giuliani, and Giuliani is a bigtime national candidate.

alnorth
01-04-2008, 11:43 AM
Iowa: The Perfect Outcome For Ron Paul

Actually, I'm pretty sure the perfect outcome in Iowa would have been winning the caucus.

Cochise
01-04-2008, 11:45 AM
Actually, I'm pretty sure the perfect outcome in Iowa would have been winning the caucus.

Whatever dude, last place among people who actually campaigned there was PERFECT. Ron Paul has those other candidates right where he wants them...

Brock
01-04-2008, 11:52 AM
Oh yeah, he has them right where he wants them

'Hamas' Jenkins
01-04-2008, 11:53 AM
http://freespace.virgin.net/sanjeev.sarpal/images/intro.1.jpg

chagrin
01-04-2008, 11:53 AM
...except for Giuliani...

You can try to take that away from us... but you cant.

I'll agree that fifth wasn't ideal for us... But all this fatalism over it is hardly convincing. More people are going to learn today about Ron Paul than knew about him two days ago. That's what matters to us in Iowa.


Since all you can seem to do is spin, why don't you give us "what's best for Paul in New Hampshire" BEFORE the caucus. It's tiring reading nothing but spin after the fact, let's see some of what you truly expect before hand...and no fluff dude.

People are also getting introduced to McCain and Huckabee, aren't they?

There is no revolution, there is your beliefe that Ron Paul will do something and the reality that he won't.

NewChief
01-04-2008, 11:56 AM
I think it's a matter of expectation. RP is doing very well if you look at him as an outsider candidate like Nader or Perot. If you were truly taking him seriously as the choice for presidential candidate of the GOP, you probably should put the pipe down.

clemensol
01-04-2008, 12:38 PM
In a way, Huckabee winning made in a great night for all the other Republicans, even 9u11iani with his .0065% of the vote. But with that said, I can't see this being a positive for Paul. While he exceeded reasonable expectations, his 5th place is not going to get him the media attention he needs.

patteeu
01-04-2008, 12:59 PM
In a way, Huckabee winning made in a great night for all the other Republicans, even 9u11iani with his .0065% of the vote. But with that said, I can't see this being a positive for Paul. While he exceeded reasonable expectations, his 5th place is not going to get him the media attention he needs.

I don't see how Mitt Romney can call it a great night. I could see more of a case for each of the others.

StcChief
01-04-2008, 01:01 PM
Seriously, can no Paulite see the grating condescencion of these kinds of remarks?

There's little in politics less attractive than 'if you were smarter you'd see things my way.'
so this guy could be a John Kerry or other elitist DEM

Silock
01-04-2008, 01:49 PM
There is no revolution, there is your beliefe that Ron Paul will do something and the reality that he won't.

I agree. Let's all drop the candidate we believe in because we didn't pick the winner of the horse race when they were still in the gates. Let's just start getting behind the guy that has more people, regardless of his stance on the issues. America, **** YEAH!

KILLER_CLOWN
01-04-2008, 03:42 PM
Ron Paul Wins baby! ;)

HolmeZz
01-04-2008, 03:47 PM
As I said in the other topic, Ron Paul did fine for a guy who's wasting everybody's time.

ClevelandBronco
01-04-2008, 04:26 PM
As I said in the other topic, Ron Paul did fine for a guy who's wasting everybody's time.

Wasting your time. Spending mine wisely.

banyon
01-04-2008, 04:42 PM
good to see the lunacy has not subsided.

Taco John
01-04-2008, 04:45 PM
good to see the lunacy has not subsided.


Why would anyone think that finishing in double digits in the pack with McCain, Thompson, and beating Giuliani would make us think anything but we've been legitimized?

HolmeZz
01-04-2008, 04:54 PM
Why would anyone think that finishing in double digits in the pack with McCain, Thompson, and beating Giuliani would make us think anything but we've been legitimized?

Because you finished a definitive 5th, last of all the candidates actively campaigning there. Your campaign has zero momentum, is still irrelevant, failed to meet your own expectations in Iowa, and your candidate has essentially no pool to pick up votes from. He's not stealing votes from pro-war candidates. Paul has a finite amount of supporters.

ClevelandBronco
01-04-2008, 04:59 PM
Because you finished a definitive 5th, last of all the candidates actively campaigning there. Your campaign has zero momentum, is still irrelevant, and your candidate has essentially no pool to pick up votes from. He's not stealing votes from pro-war candidates.

Yes, fifth. Good enough to stay alive in the debate for what our party ought to be thinking about.

Momentum? I don't know. Double digits from single digits looks like enough momentum to me.

Irrelevant? Only to the Democrats.

He's not stealing votes from pro-war candidates? I don't want him to. I want him to steal votes from free spending candidates.

banyon
01-04-2008, 05:00 PM
Why would anyone think that finishing in double digits in the pack with McCain, Thompson, and beating Giuliani would make us think anything but we've been legitimized?

I would echo Cochise's post in posts 3 and 5 and what HolmeZz just said.

I was really referring more to the thread starter, but if you want to be lumped in too, there's plenty of room in the Raving Raft of Ridiculousness for you to sail away on too if you want. ;)

Cochise
01-04-2008, 05:02 PM
Why would anyone think that finishing in double digits in the pack with McCain, Thompson, and beating Giuliani would make us think anything but we've been legitimized?

Last among the five actual contenders is legitimized...?

I seem to recall, perhaps mistaken, that not long as you said that you fully expected him to win the nomination. Is that still the case?

HolmeZz
01-04-2008, 05:05 PM
Yes, fifth. Good enough to stay alive in the debate for what our party ought to be thinking about.

Well if you want to lower your own standards that's fine. Paul would've had to do what Giuliani did in order to not finish 5th in Iowa.

Momentum? I don't know. Double digits from single digits looks like enough momentum to me.

It's funny the things you can put a spin on. You like 10% why? Because it's a round number? If he had finished with 9% would you be that much more disappointed?

Irrelevant? Only to the Democrats.

Hardly. I'd say he's as much if not more relevant to Democrats and Moderates than traditional Republican voters.

He's not stealing votes from pro-war candidates? I don't want him to. I want him to steal votes from free spending candidates.

He has to steal votes from pro-war candidates because 90% of his party supports them.

ClevelandBronco
01-04-2008, 05:07 PM
Well now that we've lowered our own standards. Paul would've had to do what Giuliani did in order to not finish 5th in Iowa.



It's funny the things you can put a spin on. You like 10% why? Because it's a round number? If he had finished with 9% would you be that much more disappointed?



Hardly. I'd say he's as much if not more relevant to Democrats and Moderates than traditional Republican voters.



He has to steal votes from pro-war candidates because 90% of his party supports them.

You misunderstand why I'll be voting for Dr. Paul. It has nothing to do with winning the nomination.

EDIT: Rogue "t."

Taco John
01-04-2008, 05:07 PM
Because you finished a definitive 5th, last of all the candidates actively campaigning there. Your campaign has zero momentum, is still irrelevant, failed to meet your own expectations in Iowa, and your candidate has essentially no pool to pick up votes from. He's not stealing votes from pro-war candidates. Paul has a finite amount of supporters.



That's just not true. Ron Paul is following only Obama in picking up votes from Independant voters right now. He led every other Republican candidate in this area. We brought more independant voters into the Republican party than any other candidate.

Say what you will, but I'm not discouraged.

Silock
01-04-2008, 05:07 PM
Because you finished a definitive 5th, last of all the candidates actively campaigning there. Your campaign has zero momentum, is still irrelevant, failed to meet your own expectations in Iowa, and your candidate has essentially no pool to pick up votes from. He's not stealing votes from pro-war candidates. Paul has a finite amount of supporters.

Paul isn't stealing votes from any Republican candidate, really. What republican candidate would RP voters vote for? They're all neo-cons.

HolmeZz
01-04-2008, 05:08 PM
Paul isn't stealing votes from any Republican candidate, really. What republican candidate would RP voters vote for? They're all neo-cons.

You're repeating my point. :p

ClevelandBronco
01-04-2008, 05:10 PM
He has to steal votes from pro-war candidates because 90% of his party supports them.

I'll give you this much, I don't support all of "them" (pro-war candidates, which include the Democratic front-runners, IMO), but I do support the continued GWOT.

Taco John
01-04-2008, 05:10 PM
I seem to recall, perhaps mistaken, that not long as you said that you fully expected him to win the nomination. Is that still the case?


I still have that candle lit.

HolmeZz
01-04-2008, 05:12 PM
That's just not true. Ron Paul is following only Obama in picking up votes from Independant voters right now. He led every other Republican candidate in this area. We brought more independant voters into the Republican party than any other candidate.

Say what you will, but I'm not discouraged.

He brought more independent candidates in because he's more relevant to independents than Republicans. And in case you haven't been paying much attention, he's running for the Republican nomination.

ClevelandBronco
01-04-2008, 05:16 PM
He brought more independent candidates in because he's more relevant to independents than Republicans. And in case you haven't been paying much attention, he's running for the Republican nomination.

Perhaps you're correct, but I can say certainly that at least one Right Wing Religious Nutjob (me, of course) is very interested in what Dr. Paul has to say about our party.

If we attract independents as we speak amongst ourselves, so much the better.

patteeu
01-04-2008, 05:25 PM
Paul isn't stealing votes from any Republican candidate, really. What republican candidate would RP voters vote for? They're all neo-cons.

I'll give you this much, I don't support all of "them" (pro-war candidates, which include the Democratic front-runners, IMO), but I do support the continued GWOT.

Instant refutation.

Silock
01-04-2008, 05:35 PM
Okay, so there's one. That's obviously a minority, though.

patteeu
01-04-2008, 05:40 PM
Okay, so there's one. That's obviously a minority, though.

You're probably right about that, although I suspect there are quite a few Paul supporters who will end up backing the Republican who gets the nomination.

Silock
01-04-2008, 05:44 PM
You're probably right about that, although I suspect there are quite a few Paul supporters who will end up backing the Republican who gets the nomination.

I dunno. I can't really see myself supporting ANYONE but Paul right now. There really isn't a fiscally-conservative, bring the troops home candidate besides Paul.

Taco John
01-04-2008, 05:47 PM
He brought more independent candidates in because he's more relevant to independents than Republicans. And in case you haven't been paying much attention, he's running for the Republican nomination.


What does that matter? It's a two party system, and the Republicans have always said they are the big tent party of big ideas.

Are you telling me that you believe that there is only enough room in America for two rigid points of view?

Silock
01-04-2008, 05:48 PM
What does that matter? It's a two party system, and the Republicans have always said they are the big tent party of big ideas.

Are you telling me that you believe that there is only enough room in America for two rigid points of view?

That's what the two major parties want you to believe.

HolmeZz
01-04-2008, 05:48 PM
What does that matter? There are only two parties. Are you telling me that you believe that there is only enough room in America for two rigid points of view?

I'm telling you you can't win a party's nomination when you're more relevant to people not in the party.

Taco John
01-04-2008, 05:51 PM
I'm telling you you can't win a party's nomination when you're more relevant to people not in the party.


The majority of Paul supporters are Republicans. We just pulled the most independants than any other candidate.

We're definitely not satisfied with the results. That's why we'll keep trying. I've got 50 letters I'm writing to voters in Michigan this weekend.

HolmeZz
01-04-2008, 05:56 PM
The majority of Paul supporters are Republicans. We just pulled the most independants than any other candidate.

Yeah, you didn't get it. What percentage of the total vote made by Republicans did he get? And what was the percentage of independents?

patteeu
01-04-2008, 06:08 PM
I dunno. I can't really see myself supporting ANYONE but Paul right now. There really isn't a fiscally-conservative, bring the troops home candidate besides Paul.

Yep. The fiscally conservative, bring the troops home at any cost folks are going to be SOL when Paul drops out.

BucEyedPea
01-04-2008, 08:59 PM
Yep. The fiscally conservative, bring the troops home at any cost folks are going to be SOL when Paul drops out.
It won't cost anything except the flights home :thumb:

Cochise
01-04-2008, 09:05 PM
Yep. The fiscally conservative, bring the troops home at any cost folks are going to be SOL when Paul drops out.

I think they will substantially defect to Obama, since most of his supporters seem to be people who are anti-war and anti-establishment above much else.

BucEyedPea
01-04-2008, 09:23 PM
Yep. The fiscally conservative, bring the troops home at any cost folks are going to be SOL when Paul drops out.
Yep! The Grand Ole Party may just be doing the same when it loses the national election.

Silock
01-04-2008, 09:36 PM
I think they will substantially defect to Obama, since most of his supporters seem to be people who are anti-war and anti-establishment above much else.

Except the guy's not at all like RP in anything but the anti-war sentiment, so . . . I doubt that many of RP's supporters that actually know WHY they're RP supporters will do that. I could be wrong, though.

clemensol
01-04-2008, 10:14 PM
I don't see how Mitt Romney can call it a great night. I could see more of a case for each of the others.

Ha... yeah, it looks like i left out the biggest part of my point...

ClevelandBronco
01-04-2008, 10:31 PM
I expect that president Obama will stay in Iraq as long as any other president.

KILLER_CLOWN
01-04-2008, 10:36 PM
I expect that president Obama will stay in Iraq as long as any other president.

QFT! ;)

patteeu
01-05-2008, 12:00 AM
I think they will substantially defect to Obama, since most of his supporters seem to be people who are anti-war and anti-establishment above much else.

I agree that there will be a large group that does just that. It seems like many of the RP supporters around here are in that group, as hard as it is for me to fathom.

Except the guy's not at all like RP in anything but the anti-war sentiment, so . . . I doubt that many of RP's supporters that actually know WHY they're RP supporters will do that. I could be wrong, though.

I agree that they aren't really very much alike at all and I would have assumed the same thing you do if it weren't for all the people in this forum who express this seemingly inconsistent sentiment. I'd guess that people in this forum are more well informed than the average voter, so I'm more inclined to agree with Cochise on this, but it's hard to say.

BucEyedPea
01-05-2008, 12:09 AM
I expect that president Obama will stay in Iraq as long as any other president.
Well McCain is fine on a hundred years or more he says. It's about causualties only to him, not being an occupier of a country which anyone hates.

Silock
01-05-2008, 12:13 AM
I agree that they aren't really very much alike at all and I would have assumed the same thing you do if it weren't for all the people in this forum who express this seemingly inconsistent sentiment. I'd guess that people in this forum are more well informed than the average voter, so I'm more inclined to agree with Cochise on this, but it's hard to say.

I would guess it's just because they want change. RP is what we need, but probably won't be in a position to be elected. Obama is also radical change, but in a totally different way. Frankly, Obama's positions scare the shit out of me. If someone held a gun to my head and said I had to vote for someone other than Ron Paul, I'd seriously consider eating the bullet.

patteeu
01-05-2008, 12:19 AM
I would guess it's just because they want change. RP is what we need, but probably won't be in a position to be elected. Obama is also radical change, but in a totally different way. Frankly, Obama's positions scare the shit out of me. If someone held a gun to my head and said I had to vote for someone other than Ron Paul, I'd seriously consider eating the bullet.

Ah, what a waste. Maybe you should consider voting for RudyMitt McThompsabee or even Hillary and we can hook you up with a bullet to eat in one of our neocon wars. ;)

Silock
01-05-2008, 04:39 AM
Eh, why go to all that trouble when I can just stand here and be consumed by the blowback?

Ultra Peanut
01-05-2008, 09:27 AM
The best part of this ellipse-filled article may be that the writer is trying to pretend Ron Paul is anything but an ultra-religious conservative.

KILLER_CLOWN
01-05-2008, 09:43 AM
The best part of this ellipse-filled article may be that the writer is trying to pretend Ron Paul is anything but an ultra-religious conservative.

The real offending term your looking for is Common Sense candidate. ;)