Obama takes Iowa

[Brainster]

Considered that:
1) RP, as Giuliani, did not put much effort in Iowa;
2) Iowa is not really a state filled with young people;
3) RP was at 4-6% in Rep national polls few days ago
I can not see why a 10% is "losing big"

Because a solid fifth-place finish doesn't translate into any momentum at all. InTrade has him down about 40% on the day, from 7.1 cents to 4.4 cents (currently) to win a dollar if he is the nominee. Ten percent was certainly better than I expected for Paul, but it's not enough, just as Fred Thompson's 13% is not enough.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

As long as you aren't one of those "experience is now a bad thing because of the existence of some experienced politicians that are unpopular for now' people then you can't answer my questions thankfully.

For people who those questions don't apply to and are skeptics I really want to know why you'd choose someone who shows signs of being the most politically zealously religious democrat ever, a possible meglamaniac that likes to compare himself to Lincoln (over the top even for a politician or rock star) probably due to his tragically messed up childhood over the more moderate and normal democratic candidates who's positions are similar.

Like why wouldn't you vote for Dodd or Richardson?

Is being a hypothetically compelling fictional character part of why you like certain candidates better?

Does he want to ban gay marriage and abortion, and teach creationism in school? No? Then I really don't care what his religion is, just so long as he doesn't impose it on me.

And lol at the megalomaniac BS. I heard he was planning on being president since kindergarten too. Really, why should I care if he compared his "humble beginnings" to Lincoln's or whatever he said. Republicans like to compare themselves to Reagan, who they regard as the best president evar. All politicians do that claptrap.

I really don't see anything spectacular enough on Dodd's or Richardson's policies to warrant me wasting my vote on them. Oh, and Richardson failed the gay debate.

 

[ZenFountain]

I can not see why a 10% is "losing big"

He lost by 24 points, that's how I view election results. Additionally I cannot begin to count the number of times RP supporters said the polls meant nothing because his unseen supporters would sweep IA and NH. I concede that 10% was more than I though Paul would receive though, in fact I remember saying there was no way he would hit double digits. I was wrong but Paul's campaign is still effectively over, leaving his most ardent supporters with the choice of either not voting or voting 3rd party in the general election.

 

[Richard Masters]

He lost by 24 points, that's how I view election results. Additionally I cannot begin to count the number of times RP supporters said the polls meant nothing because his unseen supporters would sweep IA and NH. I concede that 10% was more than I though Paul would receive though, in fact I remember saying there was no way he would hit double digits. I was wrong but Paul's campaign is still effectively over, leaving his most ardent supporters with the choice of either not voting or voting 3rd party in the general election.

Ron Paul hardly gets the coverage that Giuliani gets on the news, and yet Ron Paul crushed Giuliani. Whenever Ron Paul is on TV he is smeared (except very recently). Nobody in the media ever discusses his policies in depth; instead they criticize his policies at the surface and dismiss them as 'kooky'.

The fact that McCain and Thompson are still in the race is good for Ron Paul, because the pro-war vote will be divided. And the longer Ron Paul stays in the race, the more his numbers will improve as a result of exposure.

So, I disagree that Ron Paul's campaign is over. It already survived (if not benefited from) exclusion in previous debates, and the coming exclusion by FOX News is high profile and more unjust than the last exclusion.

FOX News hardly ever discusses Ron Paul's campaign, whereas Rudy, McCain, and Thompson get free undeserved airtime (and positive coverage, too). As such, Ron Paul's campaign has room to grow, or potential; plus, they are polling equally despite uneven coverage.

In blind studies, Ron Paul beats all Republicans.

I don't expect Ron Paul to win, but his campaign is better off today than it was yesterday.

 

[steverino]

I think Hillary is all washed up. In her speech she sounded like the establishment, but talked about a new direction. All this hokum Obama offers about hope and new ideas is more viable coming from him, a fresh face, than from Hillary, who represents the old guard. The Republicans look like they are going to self-destruct with infighting and ego clashes. Obama knows nothing about foreign policy. He seems like a nice guy and all. I just hope he can find a seasoned Secretary of State to do his bidding in Iran, Pakistan and other hotspots.

 

[Hokulele]

As long as you aren't one of those "experience is now a bad thing because of the existence of some experienced politicians that are unpopular for now' people then you can't answer my questions thankfully.

For people who those questions don't apply to and are skeptics I really want to know why you'd choose someone who shows signs of being the most politically zealously religious democrat ever, a possible meglamaniac that likes to compare himself to Lincoln (over the top even for a politician or rock star) probably due to his tragically messed up childhood over the more moderate and normal democratic candidates who's positions are similar.

Like why wouldn't you vote for Dodd or Richardson?

Is being a hypothetically compelling fictional character part of why you like certain candidates better?

My response was completely invisible?

And can someone please translate that first sentence for me? Thanks.

 

[steverino]

And can someone please translate that first sentence for me? Thanks.

The syntax boggles the mind, but I'll take a wack at it. I think the translation is: Obama is popular for his lack of experience, while more experienced candidates got fewer votes and were penalized simply for having experience, which is unfair.

The Lincoln reference I can't help you with.

 

[Matteo Martini]

Ten percent was certainly better than I expected for Paul, but it's not enough, just as Fred Thompson's 13% is not enough.

To win the primaries?
I said long time ago that I would be very surprised if RP wins the primaries.
Does not mean I am not supporting a major part of his message

 

[Hokulele]

The syntax boggles the mind, but I'll take a wack at it. I think the translation is: Obama is popular for his lack of experience, while more experienced candidates got fewer votes and were penalized simply for having experience, which is unfair.

Ah, that makes a bit more sense than how I read it. I still not sure why exactly that makes some of us unable to answer his/her questions.

The Lincoln reference I can't help you with.

Yeah, I really am not all that familiar with rock stars who compare themselves to Lincoln (I doubt he/she is referring to Linkin Park).

 

[ZenFountain]

Ron Paul hardly gets the coverage that Giuliani gets on the news, and yet Ron Paul crushed Giuliani.

Giuliani did not campaign in Iowa at all and gave up on New Hampshire about a month ago. His strategy has been Florida and New York for some time now, how many times does this need to be explained? McCain was not campaigning in Iowa either and Paul lost to him by three points. Four candidates ran significant campaigns in Iowa, Paul was one and he came in last. If I'm not mistaken he also had more money than Thompson and Huckabee. It is mind boggling to see Iowa is being spun as anything but a rout for Paul.

In blind studies, Ron Paul beats all Republicans.

That might have significance if voting was done blindly.

 

[joobie]

CNN says Dodd is folding his tent. Which is probably a good thing, since I didn't even know he was running.

i'm not sure he did, either.

 

[Richard Masters]

Giuliani did not campaign in Iowa at all and gave up on New Hampshire about a month ago. His strategy has been Florida and New York for some time now, how many times does this need to be explained?

Giuliani did campaign in Iowa, this was already pointed out. Ron Paul only campaigned in a few counties.

McCain was not campaigning in Iowa either and Paul lost to him by three points.

McCain gets undeserved airtime. Even when Ron Paul was raising more money and McCain was dropping in the polls they still gave McCain more airtime.

Also, everybody knows who McCain is.

Four candidates ran significant campaigns in Iowa, Paul was one and he came in last. If I'm not mistaken he also had more money than Thompson and Huckabee. It is mind boggling to see Iowa is being spun as anything but a rout for Paul.

What is being spun? Did you even read my post?

 

[Undesired Walrus]

Days until Matteo removes his Ron Paul avatar... 3...2...1....

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

Giuliani did campaign in Iowa, this was already pointed out. Ron Paul only campaigned in a few counties.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iNxTApa2sQRu0Xx99P3jt2bEXw7gD8TUFVQO0

This is his campaigning in Iowa:

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/11/the_giuliani_campaign_in_iowa_1.php

Or this:
http://www.newsday.com/news/local/politics/ny-usjani0104,0,6085769.column

Or this:
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080101/NEWS/80101013/-1/RSS20

Or this:
http://www.nyobserver.com/2007/giuliani-campaign-needs-money

McCain gets undeserved airtime. Even when Ron Paul was raising more money and McCain was dropping in the polls they still gave McCain more airtime.

Also, everybody knows who McCain is.

Yes, and he has a better chance to win, despite RP's temporary gains of importance.

 

[Richard Masters]

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iNxTApa2sQRu0Xx99P3jt2bEXw7gD8TUFVQO0

This is his campaigning in Iowa:

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/11/the_giuliani_campaign_in_iowa_1.php

Or this:
http://www.newsday.com/news/local/politics/ny-usjani0104,0,6085769.column

Or this:
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080101/NEWS/80101013/-1/RSS20

Or this:
http://www.nyobserver.com/2007/giuliani-campaign-needs-money



Yes, and he has a better chance to win, despite RP's temporary gains of importance.

Your evidence doesn't contradict my statements.

 

[abenja1]

On Prison Planet and much of the other similar websites, they have already started to call Paul's lacking performance a result of "rigged system" by the neo-cons, Jews, NWO, CFR, and other such abbreviations.

 

[TriskettheKid]

Your evidence doesn't contradict my statements.

Did you read the articles?

Each one was about how Giuliani pretty much shunned Iowa, and did next to no actual campaigning there.

 

[daredelvis]

Can we take the Ron Paul crap to one of the two dozen Ron Paul threads, or better yet to the Ron Paul subforum that I suggested creating over 4 weeks ago!
Now back to Obama.
To quote Bill Bennett, our collective moral compass, we can take this from the Obama win.

"Barack Hussein Obama, a black man, wins this for the Democrats.

"I have been watching him. I watched him on 'Meet the Press,' I've watched him on [Anderson Cooper's] show, watched him on all the CNN shows -- he never brings race into it. He never plays the race card.

"Talk about the black community -- he has taught the black community you don't have to act like Jesse Jackson, you don't have to act like Al Sharpton. You can talk about the issues. Great dignity. And this is a breakthrough. And good for the people of Iowa."

source
http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2008/01/04/bennett/index.html

Daredelvis

 

[fuelair]

Obama and Huckabee take Iowa,
US Govt demands it's return!
No Questions Asked.

 

[Invidious]

Iowa demographics per 2000 Census (Jerome asked for them in post #29)