Thread: So where does Iowa leave Ron Paul?

Some people on this board have been touting what they considered to be an imminent Ron Paul victory in Iowa. These people along with others on this board who have stated that they believe Paul is "the answer" and has reasonable chances towards his party's nomination for the presidency.

Ron Paul currently ranks 5th among the Republicans in Iowa with around 10% of the vote - In line with what state polls have been saying all along.

Now that reality is setting in what are your reactions? Personally I always believed Paul's candidacy to be a pipe dream supported by a relatively speaking, small and rabid fan base emboldened by the internet. These results seem to validate my position.

Originally Posted by Colin

Some people on this board have been touting what they considered to be an imminent Ron Paul victory in Iowa. These people along with others on this board who have stated that they believe Paul is "the answer" and has reasonable chances towards his party's nomination for the presidency.

Ron Paul currently ranks 5th among the Republicans in Iowa with around 10% of the vote - In line with what state polls have been saying all along.

Now that reality is setting in what are your reactions? Personally I always believed Paul's candidacy to be a pipe dream supported by a relatively speaking, small and rabid fan base emboldened by the internet. These results seem to validate my position.

Most Paul supporters have been "touting" an imminent Ron Paul victory in New Hampshire, not Iowa. The Republican Party in Iowa is controlled much too severely by rapture-ready "evangelicals" to support a principled candidate.

Who gives a crap? Clinton is losing right now, yet she has a 10-30% lead in all of the national polls.
Iowa's decision does not reflect national opinion. How many threads do I have to say that in?
Granted, I think Paul will do better than what the national polls say. But who knows.

This is just common sense. It seems like all of you have been brainwashed by the MSM......

Again, we haven't had decent nominees since 1980, this election probably won't be any different. This country has grown too dependent on a central gov't to take care of everything & the constitution be dammed. RP is a true constitutionalist & while i don't agree with him on everything, he'll be another good one that got away.

Originally Posted by Defensor

Most Paul supporters have been "touting" an imminent Ron Paul victory in New Hampshire, not Iowa. The Republican Party in Iowa is controlled much too severely by rapture-ready "evangelicals" to support a principled candidate.

Perhaps, although some people on this board have pushed different predictions.

Paul is currently polling at 7% in New Hampshire, and I can't think of any commentators that think Paul has a chance in the state.

In contrast McCain is currently polling at 31.3% (YEAH), Romney 28.8%, Giuliani 10% and Huckabee with 9.5%.

Ron Paul looks to effectively be out of the race in New Hampshire.

Originally Posted by Colin

Some people on this board have been touting what they considered to be an imminent Ron Paul victory in Iowa. These people along with others on this board who have stated that they believe Paul is "the answer" and has reasonable chances towards his party's nomination for the presidency.

Ron Paul currently ranks 5th among the Republicans in Iowa with around 10% of the vote - In line with what state polls have been saying all along.

Now that reality is setting in what are your reactions? Personally I always believed Paul's candidacy to be a pipe dream supported by a relatively speaking, small and rabid fan base emboldened by the internet. These results seem to validate my position.

I'm a little upset he didn't push for third. Thompson's a joke, and McCain's a Democrat.

10% for a Nobody, in an extremist state? Good job out of Paul, overall a good showing. Thompson will drop out soon, Paul has a Punchers chance. I've decided, I will vote as follows:

Paul
Biden
Obama
Anybody Over Hillary or Guiliani

Hillary vs. Guiliani? Write in... michaelr
Anybody

Originally Posted by Roshi

Who gives a crap? Clinton is losing right now, yet she has a 10-30% lead in all of the national polls.
Iowa's decision does not reflect national opinion. How many threads do I have to say that in?
Granted, I think Paul will do better than what the national polls say. But who knows.

This is just common sense. It seems like all of you have been brainwashed by the MSM......

You contradicted yourself. On one hand Hillary leads national polls so we should not make a big deal about Iowa. Yet, you say Paul will do better than the national polls say. Which is it? Are the national polls correct or incorrect? Supporting what the national polls on one hand or undermining them on the other? I am just watching as we go, and am pleased with the result for the Obama at this juncture.

Originally Posted by gpsweetness

You contradicted yourself. On one hand Hillary leads national polls so we should not make a big deal about Iowa. Yet, you say Paul will do better than the national polls say. Which is it? Are the national polls correct or incorrect? Supporting what the national polls on one hand or undermining them on the other?

That's why I said "granted" and "who knows". The problem with the national polls is they tend to have a 5 point or so margin of error. That still leaves Clinton with a 5 point lead at the LEAST over Obama and a 35 point lead at the MOST.
It could put Paul up a good amount though (and I think the error will go in his favor with the overall population).

It's a crap shoot. But people shouldn't make a big deal out of Iowa. As I've pointed out. Clinton lost Iowa by A LOT in 92. And someone else pointed out that Bush senior lost aswell. Iowa means nothing.

Originally Posted by Colin

Perhaps, although some people on this board have pushed different predictions.

Paul is currently polling at 7% in New Hampshire, and I can't think of any commentators that think Paul has a chance in the state.

In contrast McCain is currently polling at 31.3% (YEAH), Romney 28.8%, Giuliani 10% and Huckabee with 9.5%.

Ron Paul looks to effectively be out of the race in New Hampshire.

New Hampshire has been known to be a wildcard state with a somewhat paleolibertarian bent. Nobody expected Patrick Buchanan to win the primary in '96. And Paul has a lot more going for him than Pat did.

Originally Posted by Defensor

New Hampshire has been known to be a wildcard state with a somewhat paleolibertarian bent. Nobody expected Patrick Buchanan to win the primary in '96. And Paul has a lot more going for him than Pat did.

We shall see.

Buchanan polled reasonably well and competitively leading up to the primary in 1996. His victory was a clear possibility leading up to the vote. Regardless despite his tight win, no one expected him to garner the party's nomination because of his activist, reactionary and fringe support base that couldn't unify the party (a lot like Ron Paul). Of course he totally failed to receive the nomination.

Can we agree that Ron Paul's candidacy will be effectively dead after a significant loss in New Hampshire?