Will Ron Paul destroy the Iowa Caucus?

[konradv]

What happens to the prestige of the caucus, if they give the nod to someone who can't possibly win? Will that rejection lead to third party run and a guaranteed win for Obama?

 

[JoeB131]

You talk like this is a bad thing.

I think it's actually pretty awful that between New Hampshire and Iowa, half the field will be eliminated.

Heck, I'll go one further. I would have REALLY LIKED to have voted for Tim Pawlenty. I think Tim was vastly better than any of the morons we have left. But he jumped out because he lost a straw poll.

 

[Two Thumbs]

I wouldn't worry your little head to much.

Paul has a fair chance of winning the whole thing.

Newts almost done, Romney has always been the also ran guy that no one can really really support, so all Paul has to do is keep on keeping on and just ride it to the end.


Suck it republicans, you are going to have to route for an actual conservative or live with big 0 in the big WH for another 4 years.

 

[JoeB131]

I wouldn't worry your little head to much.

Paul has a fair chance of winning the whole thing.

Newts almost done, Romney has always been the also ran guy that no one can really really support, so all Paul has to do is keep on keeping on and just ride it to the end.


Suck it republicans, you are going to have to route for an actual conservative or live with big 0 in the big WH for another 4 years.

Ron Paul winning Iowa would be the equivlent of Pat Buchanan winning New Hampshire in 1996. It'll panick the establishment into getting behind someone- anyone- who can beat him. Even if that person is a sure-fire loser in the General.

I am really surprised the Democrats aren't getting behind Paul in Iowa and NH, since their guy is running unopposed. That would be a way of really screwing with things.

 

[Two Thumbs]

I wouldn't worry your little head to much.

Paul has a fair chance of winning the whole thing.

Newts almost done, Romney has always been the also ran guy that no one can really really support, so all Paul has to do is keep on keeping on and just ride it to the end.


Suck it republicans, you are going to have to route for an actual conservative or live with big 0 in the big WH for another 4 years.

Ron Paul winning Iowa would be the equivlent of Pat Buchanan winning New Hampshire in 1996. It'll panick the establishment into getting behind someone- anyone- who can beat him. Even if that person is a sure-fire loser in the General.

I am really surprised the Democrats aren't getting behind Paul in Iowa and NH, since their guy is running unopposed. That would be a way of really screwing with things.

They want robot romney side by side with the very charismatic big 0.

Romney will be crushed in any and every debate. Paul and Newt could crush him.

why is it you think we have yet to hear anything bad about robot from the media?

 

[mudwhistle]

Iowa is rendering themselves moot simply by voting along the fringes rather than voting for someone the whole country can support.

 

[JoeB131]

I wouldn't worry your little head to much.

Paul has a fair chance of winning the whole thing.

Newts almost done, Romney has always been the also ran guy that no one can really really support, so all Paul has to do is keep on keeping on and just ride it to the end.


Suck it republicans, you are going to have to route for an actual conservative or live with big 0 in the big WH for another 4 years.

Ron Paul winning Iowa would be the equivlent of Pat Buchanan winning New Hampshire in 1996. It'll panick the establishment into getting behind someone- anyone- who can beat him. Even if that person is a sure-fire loser in the General.

I am really surprised the Democrats aren't getting behind Paul in Iowa and NH, since their guy is running unopposed. That would be a way of really screwing with things.

They want robot romney side by side with the very charismatic big 0.

Romney will be crushed in any and every debate. Paul and Newt could crush him.

why is it you think we have yet to hear anything bad about robot from the media?

Better watch it man, you keep talking like that, they'll call you an "anti-Mormon bigot".

 

[WillowTree]

What happens to the prestige of the caucus, if they give the nod to someone who can't possibly win? Will that rejection lead to third party run and a guaranteed win for Obama?

well if they vote for him they deserve to be destroyed. jesus they need tog et a brain.

 

[Seawytch]

Iowa is seldom a good weather vane as to who is going to get the nomination which is why Romney doesn't really care if he gets it or not. Iowans don't like negative ads and Romney has been pumping those into Iowa like nobody's business. He's concentrating on beating down Newt, not winning the caucus. Why? Because it doesn't matter all that much.

 

[JoeB131]

Iowa is seldom a good weather vane as to who is going to get the nomination which is why Romney doesn't really care if he gets it or not. Iowans don't like negative ads and Romney has been pumping those into Iowa like nobody's business. He's concentrating on beating down Newt, not winning the caucus. Why? Because it doesn't matter all that much.

Oh, I don't know, Iowa has picked the eventual winner more times than not.

Mittens runs hot and cold in Iowa. A win by him there would probably seal it for him, a win by Newt would make it competitive, a win by Paul would invalidate it because Paul is done after Iowa. He's out of money then.

They are all pretty awful candidates for various reasons, you have to wonder why the GOP is not putting its best foot forward against a president who is pretty beatable.

You have to wonder what they know that we don't. That something awful is on the horizen and they don't want to be holding the bag when it hits.

 

[blastoff]

What happens to the prestige of the caucus, if they give the nod to someone who can't possibly win? Will that rejection lead to third party run and a guaranteed win for Obama?

Wouldn't be the first time - for either party - that the Iowa winner didn't become the presidential nominee.

 

[P F Tinmore]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VMUZIVYuluc&feature=g-logo&context=G241470bFOAAAAAAAVAA]Ron Paul & Joe Rogan on the Tonight Show w/ Jay Leno - YouTube[/ame]

 

[LibertyForAll]

It's funny to me to hear the talking heads on TV say something and then to come on this board and see a bunch of people repeating it. If Ron Paul had the support of the media you all would be lining up for bumper stickers.

 

[Seawytch]

Iowa is seldom a good weather vane as to who is going to get the nomination which is why Romney doesn't really care if he gets it or not. Iowans don't like negative ads and Romney has been pumping those into Iowa like nobody's business. He's concentrating on beating down Newt, not winning the caucus. Why? Because it doesn't matter all that much.

Oh, I don't know, Iowa has picked the eventual winner more times than not.

Mittens runs hot and cold in Iowa. A win by him there would probably seal it for him, a win by Newt would make it competitive, a win by Paul would invalidate it because Paul is done after Iowa. He's out of money then.

They are all pretty awful candidates for various reasons, you have to wonder why the GOP is not putting its best foot forward against a president who is pretty beatable.

You have to wonder what they know that we don't. That something awful is on the horizen and they don't want to be holding the bag when it hits.

Iowa seems only able to "pick the winner" when the winner is running unopposed:

2008 – Mike Huckabee (34%), Mitt Romney (25%), Fred Thompson (13%), John McCain (13%), Ron Paul (10%), Rudy Giuliani (4%), and Duncan Hunter (1%)
2004 – George W. Bush (unopposed)
2000 – George W. Bush (41%)[citation needed], Steve Forbes (30%)[citation needed], Alan Keyes (14%), Gary Bauer (9%), John McCain (5%), and Orrin Hatch (1%)
1996 – Bob Dole (26%), Pat Buchanan (23%), Lamar Alexander (18%), Steve Forbes (10%), Phil Gramm (9%), Alan Keyes (7%), Richard Lugar (4%), and Morry Taylor (1%)
1992 – George H. W. Bush (unopposed)
1988 – Bob Dole (37%), Pat Robertson (25%), George H. W. Bush (19%), Jack Kemp (11%), and Pierre DuPont (7%)
1984 – Ronald Reagan (unopposed)
1980 – George H. W. Bush (32%), Ronald Reagan (30%), Howard Baker (15%), John Connally (9%), Phil Crane (7%), John B. Anderson (4%), and Bob Dole (2%)
1976 – Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan

 

[LibertyForAll]

If by destroy you mean crush the competition so badly that most of them drop out then yes I think he will. I also think you have just begun to see his support grow.

 

[Seawytch]

It's funny to me to hear the talking heads on TV say something and then to come on this board and see a bunch of people repeating it. If Ron Paul had the support of the media you all would be lining up for bumper stickers.

Ron Paul is never going to have the nationwide support, period. Some libs like him for his stance on pot and the war...until they hear about how incredibly racist he is among some of his other whacked out ideas. The GOP will NEVER vote for the guy because of his stance on...well, pot and the war. Get over it.

 

[konradv]

I wouldn't worry your little head to much.

Paul has a fair chance of winning the whole thing.

Newts almost done, Romney has always been the also ran guy that no one can really really support, so all Paul has to do is keep on keeping on and just ride it to the end.


Suck it republicans, you are going to have to route for an actual conservative or live with big 0 in the big WH for another 4 years.

Ron Paul winning Iowa would be the equivlent of Pat Buchanan winning New Hampshire in 1996. It'll panick the establishment into getting behind someone- anyone- who can beat him. Even if that person is a sure-fire loser in the General.

I am really surprised the Democrats aren't getting behind Paul in Iowa and NH, since their guy is running unopposed. That would be a way of really screwing with things.

It's also the reason I don't like Open primaries. "Screwing with things" can work both ways, when one side has an unopposed candidate.

 

[konradv]

Iowa is seldom a good weather vane as to who is going to get the nomination which is why Romney doesn't really care if he gets it or not. Iowans don't like negative ads and Romney has been pumping those into Iowa like nobody's business. He's concentrating on beating down Newt, not winning the caucus. Why? Because it doesn't matter all that much.

According to what I've heard, the biggest spender in Iowa media buys has been Perry. It's "all or nothing" time, I guess.

Iowa Political Ad Spending Powered by Conservative Interests - Waukee, IA Patch

 

[konradv]

What happens to the prestige of the caucus, if they give the nod to someone who can't possibly win? Will that rejection lead to third party run and a guaranteed win for Obama?

Wouldn't be the first time - for either party - that the Iowa winner didn't become the presidential nominee.

There's a big difference between 'didn't win' and 'can't possibly win'.

 

[konradv]

It's funny to me to hear the talking heads on TV say something and then to come on this board and see a bunch of people repeating it. If Ron Paul had the support of the media you all would be lining up for bumper stickers.

It's funny that you think we can't hear, read and understand his words without the media's help. Hey, they're repeating MY words!!!