If Ron Paul wins Iowa--will Iowa lose it's credibility and it's 1st place status?

[Crackerjack]

no, MSNBC never complained when Obama kept all "Post-Health Care" meetings secret. No C-SPAN? and who hasn't forgotten all of the bribery involved in acquiring votes? isn't that illegal? subject to jail time? it was allowed in Chicago Thug politics, right?

Oh I got it man, I know there is a huge bias. But what can you do other than vote for who you like rather than who they tell you is electable?

"Electability" is largely just a self-fulfilling prophecy used against people whom the cool kids don't like but don't have many good reasons why.

 

[uscitizen]

Paul win Iowa?

LMAO!

 

[Dr.Drock]

Paul win Iowa?

LMAO!

Poll Shows Paul Holding On To Slim Lead In Iowa

The poll showed that 24 percent of likely caucus-goers intend to vote for Paul, up from 23 percent in a poll conducted a week ago.

Paul has a modest lead over former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who is supported by 20 percent of likely caucus-goers.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

​

 

[Teals_Of_Wonder]

so who do you think would be ahead in iowa if only republicans and independants were voting?

 

[Clementine]

No.

Huckabee won Iowa.

Bachman won Ames.

It has virtually no predictive value for the election.

The only way it could benefit Paul (outside the votes) is that it might make the media start to pay attention to him and give him a bump in public opinion.

I think it just tells the left who is a threat and they will up the petty attacks.

 

[Contumacious]

Paul win Iowa?

LMAO!

Poll Shows Paul Holding On To Slim Lead In Iowa

The poll showed that 24 percent of likely caucus-goers intend to vote for Paul, up from 23 percent in a poll conducted a week ago.

Paul has a modest lead over former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who is supported by 20 percent of likely caucus-goers.

Paul win Iowa?

LMAO

The Repugnants will nominate a Republican whose foreign policy is to the right of Attila the Hun

.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Paul win Iowa?

LMAO!

Poll Shows Paul Holding On To Slim Lead In Iowa

The poll showed that 24 percent of likely caucus-goers intend to vote for Paul, up from 23 percent in a poll conducted a week ago.

Paul has a modest lead over former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who is supported by 20 percent of likely caucus-goers.

Paul win Iowa?

LMAO

The Repugnants will nominate a Republican whose foreign policy is to the right of Attila the Hun

.

A policy that falls perfectly in line with Obama.

 

[candycorn]

Ron Paul is still leading in Iowa--but some of the talking heads are stating that if he actually comes in 1st place in Iowa--Iowa will lose it's credibility--and there will be others calling for Iowa to to lose their 1st place status in the primaries-- because of it.

Your opinions on this issue?

I hope he wins Iowa. It will show the world just how weak the GOP is and ensure a re-election for Mr. Obama.

Not to hijack the thread but are you surprised that parties haven't bastardized this too? I mean...Iowa isn't going to decide the Presidential race. It never has; it never will.

So why doesn't the GOP or DNC put Florida or Ohio #1 in their primaries to show them how much that state means to them...and allow them to get this monetary bump that Iowan and New Hampshire enjoy?

 

[Katzndogz]

Because the primaries or caucasus aren't held on the same day paulbots are able to flood the voting pool to force him to the top. In a SuperTuesday election where they can't do that, Paul flutters on dow to his normal 6-8%.

Question, have you ever claimed Paul could never win a single Primary? Because if you have, and Paul wins Iowa, why would I ever listen to you?

See, as a Paul supporter I have the ability to step back and look at everything without bias, you do not as you are a Paul hater. You still try and claim Paul has few supporters when that is clearly not the case.

Try looking at things realistically, not how you want them to be. I came into this thinking Paul stood no chance but I’m not here to vote for a lesser of 2 evils so I stayed supportive of who I liked best. Now I see Paul has a real shot, a better shot than anyone else at this point other than Mitt… Do I claim Paul will win Iowa when he has not? Do I claim Paul will win the nomination when he has not?

Newt claimed he will win Iowa, Newt claimed he will be the nominee… Now in 5 days if Newt does not win Iowa and maybe places 4th… Do you still take Newts word for it?

Also to note, Newts campaign is in debt already... Deficit spending lolz... Paul has raised around 17-20 million.

Your first mistake is in thinking that Iowa is a primary. It's not. It's a caucus. Ron Paul has so far won 41 straw polls. Yet, nationally he still polls the same 6 to 8% as he always does. His supporters go from place to place showing their support which can inflate his numbers locally, but have no effect nationally.

I'm not here to vote for the lesser of two evils, or choose between equal evils either.

 

[LibertyForAll]

The statenent that Iowa would be invalidated by a Ron Paul win is just a backhanded way of attacking Ron Paul and trying to diminish him in the eyes of voters in other states. These tactics might backfire on the media/republican establishment.

I am sure Iowans will not like it and they may just nominate Paul out of spite. At any rate it's a ridiculous statement that any candidate the people choose to elect could somehow invalidate the electoral process. The primary/caucus process is a means to an end. The goal is to get a candidate that the majority of the people want to be nominated. The process can't fail since whoever gets nominated will be who the people wanted to get nominated even if it's not who the establishment wants nominated. I think it invalidates the establishment personally because the American people are rejecting them as much as electing Ron Paul. I don't know who is going to win Iowa but whoever it is will be who the people there decide and that's what its all about. Well that and the Hokie Pokie.