Experts have given Paul a chance to win Iowa as early as 3 or so weeks ago. It's not much of a surprise. But he won't win the nomination. Ron Paul HIMSELF has shown signs that he doesn't even want the nomination.
Lol. People love trying to discredit Ron's chances. Off to New Hampshire next! Still not sure how the frothy mixture had such a strong showing in Iowa. Here's some cool stats: Iowa Entrance Polls: How Different Groups Voted RP crushing with the younger voters. And apparently frothy gained about 16% of his 25% in the last few days. 35% decided on him today and 33% in the last few days. Pretty gross.
Because a Republican candidate would do any better? Considering all of the good things Obama has done in his term, one poor piece of legislation isn't going to stop me from voting for him. Also, keep in mind that no one on the Republican side will survive in a campaign against him. If Romney gets the nomination, he will be another McCain. Obama has a lot more on his side than people give him credit for. He is our best option for President, arguably. And you might say Romney could campaign against him. The only reason Romney is successful is because most of the other candidates are incompetent lunatics. Also, how the hell did Santorum almost win the Iowa Caucus? Can someone explain this to me?
Ron Paul wouldn't have signed that shit. Just like he wouldn't have extended the Patriot Act. Or went to war without congressional approval. Or assassinate US citizens. Or bailout corporations. No president with approval numbers this low has ever been reelected. But Romney and the rest of the GOP field, minus Paul, are nearly identical to Obama, so there's really not much of a choice for the people. What significant things has Obama done that were good? Obama is in bed with corporations, just like Romney, Gingrich, and Santorum, etc., so I don't think he has that much more on his side than those people. There is so much power behind the corrupt politicians that it's going to be a long road for Ron. Basically the only way he pulls off getting the nomination is if people do the research on their own, because the higher power is doing everything it can to either ignore him entirely or slander him. And this is pretty apparent, considering he's the favorite with younger voters. They are likely the most self-educated.
I'll say this if paul gets the nomination I definitely have some thinking to do but I think Romney is probably gonna get it P.S. If Santorum keeps doing this well it will truly show just stupid Americans are. If they really think he is the answer then they are out of their minds. I don't understand why Huntsman, a guy with REAL foreign policy experience being the ambassador for China, is losing out to fucking Santorum. It makes me so fucking angry my head could fucking explode. If he gets elected president I'm moving to Sweden cause that is exactly what his name means (google it)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/...pping-out-concedes-iowa-caucus_n_1183120.html Yeah you're a crazy bitch, But you performed so bad that you're dropping out...
Sure, he probably wouldn't have signed the NDAA, and perhaps he wouldn't have extended the Patriot Act. However, let's be honest. It's been several decades since we've gone to war with congressional approval. Even the Republican idol, Reagan, did similar things without congressional approval. There's no guarantee that Mr. Paul wouldn't do the same thing if the circumstances were right. Also, don't be quick to talk about how Ron Paul wouldn't assassinate American citizens, because if he's willing to let people die because they can't get health care coverage, I'd argue there's a level of equivalence there. I don't think Obama had much of a choice in regards to bailing out corporations because a lot of Americans would have been absolutely fucked. What needs to happen is the passing of legislation to check the powers of corporations, but of course, the Supreme Court didn't seem to give a shit about that with Citizens United, and I don't think Ron Paul would care much either considering he considers himself a conservative and a libertarian. Obama's hand was forced there, and some good things came out of the bailout legislation. None of the candidates are 'identical' to Obama. Obama, at the very least, is competent. Yes, has he been our best President? No. But the reason why people disapprove of him so much is because you have people who scaremonger, who say that he hasn't made the changes he promised. Obama has done a lot of what he's said. May I remind everyone that with the sort of Congress that he has, he's had a very difficult time passing what he's wanted to. When your Congress is filled with a bunch of incompetent people who say no just to say no, you can see why people look at Obama saying he hasn't done anything. This is why I stated earlier that Congress has more power than he does. They dictate what legislation passes, essentially. I'm not as worried about people electing one of the Republican candidates as I am about how many people we keep in Congress who aren't doing their jobs the way we expect them to. Also, let's also recognize that Obama, as I've argued many times, was given perhaps some of the shittiest circumstances. What was broken in 8 years cannot be fixed in four. Things don't work that way in our socioeconomic system. People need to be realistic. Republicans, on the whole, have not been very realistic. That's why my vote is going to Obama. Obama passed the Affordable Care Act. Obama passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act that has actually done some very good things, including taking some revenue and placing it into education, building roads, and other arguably good projects. He's created more jobs in the private sector than Bush ever did. He signed the START Treaty. He signed the Children's Health Insurance Reauthorization Act. He repealed the restrictions Bush set on stem cell research. He passed the Health Care Reform Bill. He issued the order to kill Osama Bin Laden. We are out of Iraq. He did a lot of good things. I also think he issued an executive order to close Guantanamo. I'd say that he's been pretty successful. Yes, I agree that Ron's road to the nomination will be difficult because like you said, the media ignores him. No one seems to care about him because he's a true Republican. With that said, I don't think he's a better candidate for the presidency than President Obama. Obama is on a positive path and has done good things for this country. He, to me, stands above the other GOP Candidates. It's unfortunate that the possibility of him losing this election stands only on the sole fact that people just want something different and aren't willing to look at the positives.
Santorum (essentially) tied Romney in Iowa because he wasted a year of his life going to literally every county in the state. That effort won him pretty much all of the Evangelical Christian votes along with the some of the "not Romney" votes (which a month ago belonged to Gingrich). As for Paul, he's a candidate that will always get somewhere between 18-24% in primaries. Not more, not less. Why? Because he's the only true ideological candidate in this race. People either have loved him or hated him from the start. Unfortunately for Paul, he just isn't going to get his "haters" to suddenly like him. His foreign policy (which is liberal as fuck) in particular has permanently scared away most of the GOP primary voters. But it's interesting to wonder what would have happened if Cain was still in the race. He would have further polarized the field which may have led to a Paul victory in Iowa. Going back to Santorum, his only chance at getting anywhere is if he can somehow place highly in South Carolina. There is a high concentration of evangelicals there and with Bachmann and Perry (most likely) out by then, he may get some of their votes as well. With that said, Romney will win New Hampshire (latest poll shows him winning by 47%) which is going to make it tough for Santorum to have a chance. Never in U.S. history has a candidate ever won a party nomination without winning Iowa or New Hampshire. If Romney didn't get the nod it would be historic.
Plenty of nominees have lost Iowa but gone on to win the nomination: On the Republican side, McCain, Daddy Bush and Reagan have lost the Iowa caucuses. On the Democratic side, Clinton, Dukakis, Carter and McGovern lost it. And there's precedent for losing both Iowa and New Hampshire and winning the nomination. In 1992, Bill Clinton lost both and still got the nomination. Neither Iowa or New Hampshire are as crucial as the media makes them out to be. If Romney goes on to win NH, then his chances of winning the nomination are pretty good, but he could still lose the nod, especially in the south where evangelicals don't like Mormons too much.
Typo on my part. I meant to say Iowa OR New Hampshire. But I guess you're right about Clinton in '92. Either I was lied to or maybe I heard that was the case for Republicans.
Let's be fair, it was one state. I also heard that Santorum did a lot of touring of the state. It makes sense. While other candidates have been going around the country, he centered in on Iowa. Smart move on his part, and it explains why he got a lot of votes. However, he's not doing the same for New Hampshire. Considering he didn't technically win the Iowa Caucus (despite the fact that it was only by eight votes), he only stands a chance if he pulls out a 1st or 2nd place victory in New Hampshire, which is unlikely if he's not going to center on NH for a while. At this rate, New Hampshire will go to either Romney or Paul, and I don't think it's an unfair prediction that Romney will take NH a bit more convincingly than he did Iowa. If that happens, then Romney will be the GOP's choice to run against President Obama. And if that happens, Obama has less of a chance of winning, but will also be in a good place to win a second term because of he fact that Romney, in the eyes of many, is too moderate to be the Republican Candidate (which is why I wouldn't be all that upset if he won, although I'd still prefer Obama any day of the week). People say he flip-flops, and right-wing Evangelical Republicans don't like that he is a Mormon. He's the best candidate (besides Paul and Huntsman) in my opinion when it comes to the GOP, but ultimately Obama has more to say and less working against him. He's done too much and while Republican support has increased in the past few years, people are more upset about Congress than they are about Obama (check the approval ratings). I just don't think Obama will lose this election because the GOP just doesn't have the guns to make it happen.
Yeah I know he still has no chance but just the fact that people like his politics enough to vote for him disgusts me
Oh believe me, I'm as surprised as you are that people voted for him at all. However it makes sense considering how heavily he campaigned, and how people have been trying to bounce around, avoiding voting for Romney, trying out every candidate possible. We all know Romney is pretty much set for this nomination.
Frothy got about 2/3rds of his support the final few days before the caucus. It was purely media hype that created his surge. His campaign is pathetic and he has no money to seriously campaign from here on out unless donations start flying in. He couldn't draw a crowd of 50 people when he was campaigning in Iowa and was polling at around 4% up until a couple weeks ago.