Iowa Caucus: Santorum/Romney 1st, Paul 3rd

This article was written on Dec. 28 and also helps to explain a bit about what I was talking about in terms of how a caucus works and why the straw poll doesn't mean shit. Again, I'd be saying this even if Ron Paul "won" the straw poll. If he doesn't get the delegates, it's useless.

Mike Huckabee Won Iowa in 2008, Failed to Receive a Single Delegate in the End


As you're being inundated with wall-to-wall coverage of the Iowa caucuses this week, keep the following number in mind: zero.

The quest for the GOP's presidential nomination is ultimately a race for delegates. With 2,286 delegates attending the party's national convention in Tampa at the end of August, the backing of slightly over half of that group -- 1,144 -- will be needed for Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, or someone else to capture the prize.

Guess how many of these delegates will be selected in Iowa on January 3. Zero. Zip. Zilch. Nada.

Iowa matters for one reason only: the media says so. It's been deemed the first "real" contest on the presidential nominating calendar, and for some reason "first" warrants wall-to-wall coverage. The winner -- or perceived winner -- is almost certain to get a campaign cash boost and ride a tidal wave of media-fueled momentum.

"Big Mo," as George H.W. Bush once famously called it, can be a game changer.


Want to know what really happens in Iowa in January? Not much. A few thousand people who care enough about politics to spend an evening at their local library or church basement will decide who gets to attend the state GOP's county conventions in March.
They'll also participate in a non-binding presidential preference vote. ("Non-binding" means the state's national convention delegates do not have to vote according to the preferences of caucus participants.)

And that's about it.

In March, the county convention delegates will decide who attends a bunch of congressional district meetings and a statewide convention in late April and June. That's when most of Iowa's 28 national convention delegates — a bit over 1% of the total number of delegates in Tampa — will actually be chosen. If there's already a likely nominee by that point, you can bet Iowa won't rock the boat.

Remember Mike Huckabee's big win in the 2008 Iowa GOP caucuses? The party's eventual nominee, John McCain, won all of Iowa's delegate votes at the national convention.

The history of the Iowa caucuses is actually a case study in the power of the media to shape -- or warp, depending on your point of view -- the nomination contest.


More…

Paul is a complete unknown to the vast majority of voters. There is no way a poll claiming that Paul would beat Obama is even close to being accurate. The Obama camp hopes that Paul gets nominated. If he does, they win in a cake walk. No one knows Paul on the national stage. The average voter has never heard of him. They can easily smear him and tar and feather him however they please. No one knows his track record and his party does not and will not support them because he doesn't play ball. If Paul were nominated he would split the party. The libertarian wing would go with him and the moderate/conservative wing would go with some 3rd party candidate like Romney. The split would all but guarantee Obama victory.

Oh. I guess every poll is wrong because you say it is?

Explain to me how it's inaccurate. I fail to understand what you're saying. If they don't know who he is, then why would he get a higher percentage of votes than everyone other than Romney vs. Obama (he's pretty much dead on with Romney)?

The great thing is that if you're right about him being a relative unknown is a GOOD thing. That means he has the biggest space to grow, particularly with independents and Democrats.



Interesting theory backed up with how the liberal media has been completely favorable to Ron Paul, backing him any time they can against the other Republican candidates.

Oh wait.



Not according to actual data.



No one knew who Barack Obama was in 2008 either. Then he "energized the nation."

Ron Paul is the "Barack Obama" for people that actually have some semblance of a clue of what the is going on. He has an amazing track record and a much more dedicated base of supporters than any other candidate.

Hell, he even stuck around in 2008 until the bitter end while all of the other candidates had dropped out... And his support was only a fraction then of what it is now.



His party would have to support him if he got the nomination. They wouldn't have another option.



Maybe over time it would, but not in one election cycle.

People said the same thing about the Tea Party candidates. Then the Tea Party kicked ass in the elections.



Shouldn't it be obvious now that Romney is not the candidate who can unite the Republican party anyway? He ran the exact same in '08 as he did in '12, his numbers have remained relatively the same while three or four other candidates have risen above him and then fallen... He is the front-runner, but only based on the fact that the other establishment candidates (everyone remaining except Ron Paul) are all a joke. Still people vote for the "anti-Romney" candidate, in this case Santorum -- previously Gingrich -- previously Cain -- previously Perry -- previously Bachmann.

Romney is probably going to win the nomination as I said from the beginning, but that is a GUARANTEE that the Republicans get trounced in an actual election.

If Ron Paul even has 10% of the population supporting him -- which is a conservative number -- Romney has zero chance of winning a general election. He has a smaller base to begin with from the Republican party, he can't swing many independents, no Democrats are going to vote for him AND he'd be dropping 10% of the already inferior Republican base who would not vote for him and would instead write-in Ron Paul, vote for Gary Johnson as a Libertarian, vote for Obama or not vote at all.

I don't know a single Ron Paul supporter who is going to vote for any other Republican. Not one. And I know a lot of Ron Paul supporters.

You can sit around and act like Ron Paul has "no chance" in a general election, but the truth is that if he WAS to win the nomination, the VAST MAJORITY of Republican voters would vote for him simply because he's "not Obama."

Sure, there would be pissed off hillbilly retards that would refuse to support him because he "WANTS IRAN TO GET A NEWWWK!," but MOST people do not vote based on the issues anyway. They vote based on "R" or "D."

For those who are independent or on the fence, however, Ron Paul is the only person who can realistically steal votes from Obama. Can you at least concede THAT?

To some people, yes. And to some people, that's all they're really looking for.

You're absolutely entitled to that opinion.

I didn't understand that, honestly. I saw the tweet and laughed, but it makes no sense for someone from the Paul campaign to make fun of Huntsman for not doing well.

Agreed.

Not DIRECTLY on topic but has anyone else seen how sickening this is?

It's like blaming Obama for something his tumblr puts out.