what happens if Paul wins Iowa?

[ladyliberal]

I think the problem for the GOP is going to be if Paul steps down and runs as an Independent. I think Paul will rob votes from whoever the GOP nominee is.

Me being a Dem... I'm fine with that... but it has to be kind of disconcerting to our Conservative Brethren.

I don't think Paul is likely to run as a third party candidate. He didn't in 2008.

The one thing that makes me think he might is that based on his performance in the debates, he might dislike Gingrich enough to prefer Obama. He certainly wouldn't endorse Gingrich (he didn't endorse McCain) and he might allow his name to be placed on the ballot by third parties.

 

[dblack]

I don't think Paul is likely to run as a third party candidate. He didn't in 2008.

The one thing that makes me think he might is that based on his performance in the debates, he might dislike Gingrich enough to prefer Obama. He certainly wouldn't endorse Gingrich (he didn't endorse McCain) and he might allow his name to be placed on the ballot by third parties.

I actually think he's considering it. Unlike '08, this time around he announced going in that he wouldn't be running for re-election to congress. Plus, he's been hedging when asked about it, saying he's "not ruling it out, or in".

If Gingrich or Romney are the candidates, I suspect he will. I certainly hope he does.

 

[Avorysuds]

I don't think Paul is likely to run as a third party candidate. He didn't in 2008.

The one thing that makes me think he might is that based on his performance in the debates, he might dislike Gingrich enough to prefer Obama. He certainly wouldn't endorse Gingrich (he didn't endorse McCain) and he might allow his name to be placed on the ballot by third parties.

I actually think he's considering it. Unlike '08, this time around he announced going in that he wouldn't be running for re-election to congress. Plus, he's been hedging when asked about it, saying he's "not ruling it out, or in".

If Gingrich or Romney are the candidates, I suspect he will. I certainly hope he does.

He does not answer the question because then the Media/GOP can treat him like trash and if he tried to run third party they would say "Remember when you said you wouldn't? That makes Paul a LIAR!!!"

Also the reality is Paul is doing very well, one of the best in fact… If there is the chance he might third party if you trash him too much, well then it ***** you…

Newt could try and run third party, so could Mitt or whoever, the difference is they get support because the meida says they are a front runner, Paul has real support.

 

[dblack]

This just in ...

Ron Paul campaign rejects 3rd party buzz

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

I see the Paul pimps finally showed up.

 

[uptownlivin90]

It honestly depends on if Paul uses his time wisely. He's built an incredibly well-organized base in Iowa. They've done a tremendous job over the past few months. The effectiveness of their work will not lie in whether or not they can pull of a win in Iowa but rather if they can transition their success from Iowa to New Hampshire. If he wins in Iowa and performs poorly in New Hampshire, the win in Iwoa means nothing. If he wins in Iowa and places first or second in New Hampshire, then he'll prove he has a strong showing and the media will be forced to give his campaign attention. Which would suck for Gingrich because the media already has it's heart fixed on a "Romney vs Place Random GOP Candidate Here" race. In which if Paul one Iowa and did even remotely well in New Hampshire would be the "Random GOP Candidate" and Gingrich is out... again.

 

[The Rabbi]

The wookie-suiters will shit themselves in joy and ecstasy.
But it won't happen because Paul won't win Iowa.

 

[uptownlivin90]

The wookie-suiters will shit themselves in joy and ecstasy.
But it won't happen because Paul won't win Iowa.

He has as much of a shot at Iowa as Romney. I personally believe Gingrich will win, but the possibility of a Paul victory in Iowa is a pretty good one this year.

 

[JoeB131]

In the last poll I saw Paul was basically tied with Newt for first and was only behind by one point.

Presuming he pulls off a win what will it mean for the rest of them? Who will drop out? Will Paul be just like Huckabee?

Unlikely.

Let's not forget, the Iowa Caucuses are only important BEFORE they happen. They become old news pretty much five minutes after they are over.

Because of the nature of the Caucus, where people have to gather in a public place, they are pretty much like Straw Polls.

I think if he wins, it helps Romney more than it actually helps Paul. Paul has no game beyond Iowa, really. He'll still get that 6% or so of crazy people and dope-smoking college kids, but that's about it.

But it does give Romney breathing room as Newt won't have as much momentum going into NH and then makes Romney more viable in SC.

That said, South Carolina is the one to watch. It's picked every GOP nominee since 1980.

 

[JoeB131]

I think the problem for the GOP is going to be if Paul steps down and runs as an Independent. I think Paul will rob votes from whoever the GOP nominee is.

Me being a Dem... I'm fine with that... but it has to be kind of disconcerting to our Conservative Brethren.

Not really.

Running as a Republican gives Paul a lot of free media he wouldn't otherwise have. If he runs as the libertarian candidate, he won't get any free airtime, he won't be invited to debates, he won't get matching funds or PAC money or any of that.

 

[uptownlivin90]

In the last poll I saw Paul was basically tied with Newt for first and was only behind by one point.

Presuming he pulls off a win what will it mean for the rest of them? Who will drop out? Will Paul be just like Huckabee?

Unlikely.

Let's not forget, the Iowa Caucuses are only important BEFORE they happen. They become old news pretty much five minutes after they are over.

Because of the nature of the Caucus, where people have to gather in a public place, they are pretty much like Straw Polls.

Which is why I said that in order for Iowa to mean anything to Ron Paul he'd have to pull off an impressive showing in New Hampshire. He HAS to at least pull second in New Hampshire or it's over. Is that a long shot? Yes. Could it happen? If Paul manages to begin pulling his resources away from Iowa within the next week and focus the rest of his time from the end of December to early January in New Hampshire. Then he has a chance. If he can pull a second place behind Romney in New Hampshire after winning in Iowa, I'd say he has had a pretty good run.

I think if he wins, it helps Romney more than it actually helps Paul. Paul has no game beyond Iowa, really. He'll still get that 6% or so of crazy people and dope-smoking college kids, but that's about it.

But it does give Romney breathing room as Newt won't have as much momentum going into NH and then makes Romney more viable in SC.

That said, South Carolina is the one to watch. It's picked every GOP nominee since 1980.

I don't think South Carolina will pick this years. The base is too confused. The evangelicals are too split. This isn't Bush vs McCain this is Romney vs everybody else. Even some McCain voters in South Carolina don't want to touch Romney. If Paul wins in Iowa and places second in New Hampshire that will Gingrich and Paul will be the like fourth or fifth anti-Romney front-runner, which will through the evangelical wing of the party into a wild whirlwind free-for-all, and split the base. What that means for Romney and Paul I don't know... but to me I think realistical Romney vs Paul = Romney for the nomination... sadly.

 

[Steelplate]

I think the problem for the GOP is going to be if Paul steps down and runs as an Independent. I think Paul will rob votes from whoever the GOP nominee is.

Me being a Dem... I'm fine with that... but it has to be kind of disconcerting to our Conservative Brethren.

Not really.

Running as a Republican gives Paul a lot of free media he wouldn't otherwise have. If he runs as the libertarian candidate, he won't get any free airtime, he won't be invited to debates, he won't get matching funds or PAC money or any of that.

I'm talking about after the nomination is done.

 

[Steelplate]

I think the problem for the GOP is going to be if Paul steps down and runs as an Independent. I think Paul will rob votes from whoever the GOP nominee is.

Me being a Dem... I'm fine with that... but it has to be kind of disconcerting to our Conservative Brethren.

At this point would you vote Obama or Paul? Or would it be a hard choice? Serious question, I know it's the internet and means almost nothing but most Dems I know consider Paul the only Rep they would vote for and more than that they have claimed there is a very good chance they would if it were Obama VS Paul... Mainly because the "believe what he says..." Very odd to me, just what I have been told over and over, and I don't push Paul on anyone I know in real life.

Nope... wouldn't vote for him against Obama. While I like many of the things Libertarians stand for... I disagree with their Sink or Swim attitude when it comes to social programs.

Could I see a day, if all the Corporate Welfare, War mongering and Money out of Politics came to pass... a day where people...even relatively unskilled people who work for others get paid in a manner that can support a family and leave a little breathing room for savings and/or a small luxury here and there...that I would vote Libertarian? Absolutely.

But until that day comes, I will cast my vote for the working people of the country, which generally means Democratic. I don't believe in the fantasy of Trickle Down Economics anymore. I used to be a believer... but no more... it's a fallacy and a give away to big business and the Corporate lobby.

But as far as his, and the Libertarian view on personal freedoms? Yep. I like it.

 

[JoeB131]

I think the problem for the GOP is going to be if Paul steps down and runs as an Independent. I think Paul will rob votes from whoever the GOP nominee is.

Me being a Dem... I'm fine with that... but it has to be kind of disconcerting to our Conservative Brethren.

Not really.

Running as a Republican gives Paul a lot of free media he wouldn't otherwise have. If he runs as the libertarian candidate, he won't get any free airtime, he won't be invited to debates, he won't get matching funds or PAC money or any of that.

I'm talking about after the nomination is done.

So was I, but basic English is beyond you, obviously.... Go check back with MSNBC for your talking points.

 

[Steelplate]

Not really.

Running as a Republican gives Paul a lot of free media he wouldn't otherwise have. If he runs as the libertarian candidate, he won't get any free airtime, he won't be invited to debates, he won't get matching funds or PAC money or any of that.

I'm talking about after the nomination is done.

So was I, but basic English is beyond you, obviously.... Go check back with MSNBC for your talking points.

Oh, wait... you are saying IF he WINS the nomination? Okay.... misunderstood.. No, I was saying IF he doesn't(and he probably won't) win the nomination.

By the way... **** you foxbot.

 

[dblack]

Nope... wouldn't vote for him against Obama. While I like many of the things Libertarians stand for... I disagree with their Sink or Swim attitude when it comes to social programs.

Could I see a day, if all the Corporate Welfare, War mongering and Money out of Politics came to pass... a day where people...even relatively unskilled people who work for others get paid in a manner that can support a family and leave a little breathing room for savings and/or a small luxury here and there...that I would vote Libertarian? Absolutely.

This is frustrating to hear, because that's pretty much Paul's attitude in a nutshell. You look at his initiatives, the things he's actually promoting - he's all about getting rid of the warfare state and crony capitalism before we worry about welfare. This is why I find the close association with Tea Party Republicans as damaging to the libertarian cause as it is helpful, maybe more so. Many of them tout libertarian ideals as a cover for the standard 'stingy Republican' mindset. But that's not what Ron Paul, or real libertarianism is about.

The thing that gets Paul in trouble is that he always defends his ideals. So when pressed on his views on the welfare state, he'll tell you he thinks that it is ultimately more destructive then helpful. But despite his strong, consistent ideology, he's not an ideologue. He has repeatedly called for cutting military spending so we can afford to take care of people here at home. And while, as a libertarian, he'd ultimately like to see as few people as possible dependent on the state, he has no agenda to see people starving in the street. Quite the opposite. He wants to end the culture of dependency that has been carefully inculcated by the corporate class to keep the rest of dependent and obedient.

 

[Oscar Wao]

If Paul wins Iowa, the bloodthirsty Muslim haters will go crazy.

 

[editec]

In the last poll I saw Paul was basically tied with Newt for first and was only behind by one point.

Presuming he pulls off a win what will it mean for the rest of them? Who will drop out? Will Paul be just like Huckabee?

I'll tell what it will means, even though I cannot tell you what results from it.

If RP wins in Iowa, it means that the younger republicans, those who as yet have no real power, are eroding the power base of the current INSIDERS in the RNC.

It basically will be telling us this: EVEN republicans can only swallow so much bullshit before they stop believing in the current GOP nonsense.

 

[Douger]

them thar Iowanians continue to be cornholed by Monsanto ? Nada mas.

 

[Steelplate]

Nope... wouldn't vote for him against Obama. While I like many of the things Libertarians stand for... I disagree with their Sink or Swim attitude when it comes to social programs.

Could I see a day, if all the Corporate Welfare, War mongering and Money out of Politics came to pass... a day where people...even relatively unskilled people who work for others get paid in a manner that can support a family and leave a little breathing room for savings and/or a small luxury here and there...that I would vote Libertarian? Absolutely.

This is frustrating to hear, because that's pretty much Paul's attitude in a nutshell. You look at his initiatives, the things he's actually promoting - he's all about getting rid of the warfare state and crony capitalism before we worry about welfare. This is why I find the close association with Tea Party Republicans as damaging to the libertarian cause as it is helpful, maybe more so. Many of them tout libertarian ideals as a cover for the standard 'stingy Republican' mindset. But that's not what Ron Paul, or real libertarianism is about.

The thing that gets Paul in trouble is that he always defends his ideals. So when pressed on his views on the welfare state, he'll tell you he thinks that it is ultimately more destructive then helpful. But despite his strong, consistent ideology, he's not an ideologue. He has repeatedly called for cutting military spending so we can afford to take care of people here at home. And while, as a libertarian, he'd ultimately like to see as few people as possible dependent on the state, he has no agenda to see people starving in the street. Quite the opposite. He wants to end the culture of dependency that has been carefully inculcated by the corporate class to keep the rest of dependent and obedient.

Then he should, instead of "defending his position", he should go into detail on those types of things. He's been in the game long enough that he should know how to inject his methodology instead of going on a philosophical rant.