|
|
Post by Adam on Dec 20, 2011 9:16:28 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Dec 20, 2011 11:42:15 GMT -5
Absolutely, and I think I kind of explained that above, but I agree with you. Winning Iowa doesn't mean Paul is in the lead right now. But it certainly would have a positive affect on the Paul campaign. not to mention that a paul win would force the media to actually, you know, report it No it wouldn't. Chris Wallace already said if Paul wins it doesn't count. Now the Governor of Iowa is saying it won't count and to look at whoever placed second. |
|
|
|
Post by Tim of thee on Dec 20, 2011 12:48:11 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Dec 20, 2011 12:54:43 GMT -5
The Iowa Caucus was not killed when Huckabee, Dole in 88 or HW Bush in 80 won or when Reagan tied with Ford in 76 so a Paul win in 2012 wouldn't hurt it. |
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Dec 20, 2011 13:03:45 GMT -5
You have to know that anything Ron Paul wins is instantly discredited by the media. That's just the game they play. How bad they screw him over should go to show everyone how badly these establishment, New World Order pieces of crapwant to win.
|
|
|
|
Post by Adam on Dec 20, 2011 13:36:34 GMT -5
But what would happen if he did win the nomination? Would Fox News then back President Obama?
|
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Dec 20, 2011 14:22:30 GMT -5
They'd half-heartedly back Paul, I presume... But as Hulk said, they'd probably find a third party candidate to support.
In fairness, though, Glenn Beck has said he'd support Dr. Paul... Also, Judge Napolitano fully endorses Paul any chance he gets.
|
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Dec 20, 2011 16:06:38 GMT -5
But what would happen if he did win the nomination? Would Fox News then back President Obama? Nope, they'd back Sarah Palin. She said she may still get in. |
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Dec 20, 2011 17:24:13 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Adam on Dec 20, 2011 17:25:46 GMT -5
Nope, they'd back Sarah Palin. She said she may still get in. Oh...please no. But I meant if it were Obama vs Paul in the general election. |
|
|
|
Post by danmorganbrand on Dec 20, 2011 17:40:39 GMT -5
That Ron Paul guy will be happy.......
|
|
|
|
Post by ztj_wwf on Dec 20, 2011 17:45:27 GMT -5
When Ron Paul wins Iowa, the headline will be: "Romney comes second".
These people are ridiculous...Iowa matters when Romney or Gingrich are in the lead but now that Paul is going to win, it doesn't matter at all? Give me a break...
RON PAUL 2012!
|
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Dec 20, 2011 18:29:43 GMT -5
Nope, they'd back Sarah Palin. She said she may still get in. Oh...please no. But I meant if it were Obama vs Paul in the general election. I know, I meant she'll jump in if it's Paul vs Obama and they'll support her. |
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Dec 20, 2011 18:59:30 GMT -5
Nope, they'd back Sarah Palin. She said she may still get in. Oh...please no. But I meant if it were Obama vs Paul in the general election. Wouldn't matter. Obama would win. Paul is a Libertarian masquerading as a Republican. The base won't support him. |
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Dec 20, 2011 19:08:46 GMT -5
Oh...please no. But I meant if it were Obama vs Paul in the general election. Wouldn't matter. Obama would win. Paul is a Libertarian masquerading as a Republican. The base won't support him. Just like another Ron that was far too crazy for anyone to support but ended up destroying the incumbent. |
|
hbkrules
Main Eventer
WF 10 Year Member
Joined on: Jun 18, 2002 11:49:32 GMT -5
Posts: 2,115
|
Post by hbkrules on Dec 20, 2011 19:35:54 GMT -5
The reason it is ignored is because Ron Paul has no shot to win the nomination. It is an indisputable fact that he does not have nationwide support. He is popular in Iowa because he has literally spent the last 5 years there and Iowans often like to go against the grain.
|
|
|
|
Post by Adam on Dec 20, 2011 19:47:44 GMT -5
Wouldn't matter. Obama would win. Paul is a Libertarian masquerading as a Republican. The base won't support him. It was a hypothetical. If the base was that opposed to Paul being in the oval office, then clearly they don't hate Obama as much as they say they do. |
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Dec 20, 2011 20:06:41 GMT -5
The reason it is ignored is because Ron Paul has no shot to win the nomination. It is an indisputable fact that he does not have nationwide support. He is popular in Iowa because he has literally spent the last 5 years there and Iowans often like to go against the grain. Nationwide means shit. You have to look at the states. He's gaining in the states. Romney has been campaigning as well for the last 6 years and it hasn't helped him at all. Iowans often go against the grain that they have correctly predicted the nominee half the time (Ford and W. Bush). That is going off them voting first in the nation. When they were right about Dole they were not first. Last time they were very wrong with McCain coming in 4th. I don't see why that didn't discredit the caucus. In 1980 when they were wrong Reagan lost to Bush 32-30% so they were quite close. |
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Dec 20, 2011 20:35:44 GMT -5
Wouldn't matter. Obama would win. Paul is a Libertarian masquerading as a Republican. The base won't support him. It was a hypothetical. If the base was that opposed to Paul being in the oval office, then clearly they don't hate Obama as much as they say they do. They hate Paul more than Obama. Paul is seen as an extremist within his own party. |
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Dec 20, 2011 20:45:11 GMT -5
It was a hypothetical. If the base was that opposed to Paul being in the oval office, then clearly they don't hate Obama as much as they say they do. They hate Paul more than Obama. Paul is seen as an extremist within his own party. They'd rather deal with disagreements in domestic affairs than give up their precious wars and bombings. |
|
