Thread: Ron Paul Iowa Campaign Sabotaged

Lets just all face facts
1. Iowa is a mostly democratic state to begin with.
2. Iowa has a fairly high religous demographic which of course would be more geared towards an allegedly religous candidate such as the Huckster.
3. RP although he has a great number of principles and beliefs that I support in great number was campaigning in a state that has a lot of farmers who rely on gov. subsidies which he doesn't support. So in that case no farmer or friend of a farmer or business that depends on farming is going to vote for him.
4. Most Americans may not be ready to have a gov that they cannont rely on to take care of them in times of need, most people are not financially, mentally, or physically capable of being responsible enough for themselves and would like for Uncle Sam to take care of them from the cradle to the grave. The thought of having all the social programs taken away that are helping to erode the middle class (because we are the majority we have to pay for it) doesnt sound to good to most of the freeloaders out there taking adv. of it.
I highly doubt there is any conspiracy that is credible out there we have had too many debates to count, anyone who has watched the news for an hour a wk has had a chance to hear about all of the candidates.
I just hope all is not for nothing for RP.

Originally Posted by Chad750

Lets just all face facts
1. Iowa is a mostly democratic state to begin with.

No it isn't. Bush got more votes than Kerry in 2004. And Gore got more votes than bush in 2000. There are 45 democratic delegations and 40 republican. As of Nov. 1 there were 1,912,197 registered voters in Iowa -- 600, 572 Democrats, 574,571 Republicans and 737,069 who affiliate with neither party.

The interesting thing to note is the GIANT increased in Democratic participation this year.

Originally Posted by Roshi

No it isn't. Bush got more votes than Kerry in 2004. And Gore got more votes than bush in 2000. There are 45 democratic delegations and 40 republican. As of Nov. 1 there were 1,912,197 registered voters in Iowa -- 600, 572 Democrats, 574,571 Republicans and 737,069 who affiliate with neither party.

The interesting thing to note is the GIANT increased in Democratic participation this year.

Interesting how you pick out one thing in my thread w/o submitting anything interesting to say about the rest.
If you do the math there are 26000 more democrats than repubs registered
that my friend constitutes a majority therefore there are more dems in Iowa than Repubs if you want to get down to brass tacks.
Just because they didnt decide to vote for Kerry back in 2004 doesnt mean there were more repubs it just means they didnt turn out to vote for douche bags that represented their party

Originally Posted by Chad750

Interesting how you pick out one thing in my thread w/o submitting anything interesting to say about the rest.
If you do the math there are 26000 more democrats than repubs registered
that my friend constitutes a majority therefore there are more dems in Iowa than Repubs if you want to get down to brass tacks.
Just because they didnt decide to vote for Kerry back in 2004 doesnt mean there were more repubs it just means they didnt turn out to vote for douche bags that represented their party

Maybe you don't know what the word "Mostly" means? Of registered voters, there are only 2.2% more Democrats. That does not equate to "mostly" Democratic. For instance, "almost entirely" is a synonym for mostly. It is no where near entirely Democratic.

Voting for Kerry does not prove they are Republicans. Of course, I never claimed they were. What it proves is that they are not mostly Democrats.

Originally Posted by Defensor

Of course you can. Fox News does this all the time with people who don't share their opinions. This whole issue was up in the air just a few days ago, with the New Hampshire Republican Party Chairman urging media outlets not to exclude candidates whom they don't like. Fox is making this nonsense up as it goes along. If they had any integrity at all, Rudy and Fred would get the boot.

And apparently is every other pollster in the country.

Originally Posted by freckles

So they lost because their supporters forgot to show up because they weren't reminded?

Don't try to baffle Paulbots with logic...:laughing:

I'm still curious to know what happened to the original accusation of sabotage (with the Ron Paul phone database). So far, the only evidence suggesting this happened is a single e-mail written well after the caucus results were made public - with an uncharacteristically silent crowd of Ron Paul groupies during the 14-hour span during which they were deprived of the call lists.

Don't worry, I'm sure that Ross Perot, excuse me, "Ron Paul" will do just fine.