Iowa Also-Rans: "Winners and Losers"

[William Haskins]

so the actual winners (by the numbers) in iowa are apparent now, but who among those who didn't place 1st gained or lost in their iowa bid, as it relates to moving forward?

here's my take:

Democrats:

winner: john edwards. with a somewhat surprising 2nd place showing, he remained viable for the next round of primaries. this becomes especially valuable to obama if and when he drops out and throws his support barak's way. another VP run isn't out of the question.

loser: john edwards. his gaffe during his "non-concession" speech didn't go unnoticed and he's going to be haunted by his taking of matching funds, an indicator that, even if he made a huge primary comeback, he wouldn't have the money to beat the republican machine in the general election.

co-loser: hillary clinton. though she was no means a distant third, she was somewhat wounded and made more vulnerable in new hampshire, which now takes on a far more crucial role for her aspirations.

Republicans:

winner: john mccain. after being written off for dead and barely campaigning in iowa, he picked up enough momentum to get to 13% and that (combined with a horribly lackluster showing by romney) sets the stage for a full-blown comeback in new hampshire. if he does that, and then beats romney in mitt's home state of michigan, the republican side becomes a 2-man race fairly quickly.

co-winner: ron paul. he spent little money and got big numbers for a republican running on his brand of issues. with his 25 million and some buzz, he can viably continue for the short-term within the party primary system and perhaps stake out a third-party run.

loser: rudy giuliani. sure, he never campaigned in iowa and has a "florida and beyond" strategy, but still his numbers wilted horribly and he now limps into new hampshire with little support. if his strategy somehow does work and he wins big in florida and dominates super-tuesday, he'll look like a genius... but i don't see it happening.

[SarahinOhio]

Winners: Democrats.

Turnout was huge. People scoffed at The Des Moines Register's prediction of 200,000. 235,000 was more like it. Democrats really are fired up, and ready to go. Young Democrats, in particular. And the number (if not percentage) of independents swelled, too. This is an exciting field of candidates. The Republicans' turnout, while healthy, could not compare (120,000).


Mixed: John McCain.

Iowa will not matter much to his long-term success. Except for the fact that Romney was thumped. However, he's going to need those independents in New Hampshire in order to top Romney. As such, he was likely hoping for a Hillary win last night. Now independents could flock to Obama, muddying the picture for McCain a bit.

Winner: Rudy Giuliani.

Yes, he got sixth. Behind Ron Paul. But he wants the nomination fight to drag on as long as possible, and Huckabee is his savior in this respect. He's waiting for Feb. 5th to make his stand, and the longer voters are confused about a frontrunner, the better for Rudy. We'll just see if he can survive the cold shoulder form the media for that long. I kinda doubt it.

[William Haskins]

Now independents could flock to Obama, muddying the picture for McCain a bit.

yep. this is a great point.

[nerds]

yep. this is a great point.


It is, and they are. I'm one of them, though my decision is not set in stone just yet. Every Independent I know currently has Obama at the top of their list.

[Bird of Prey]

I think the big loser is the state of Iowa. In 2012, very few will spend that kind of money or time there. It is very unlikely that Huckabee will carry more than one or two minor states, and that's being optimistic. Obama had a great showing, but he was a big fish in a small pond. He has yet to really engage the sharks. McCain's strategy was wise. Giuliani is in trouble regardless.

[TheGaffer]

We'll just see if he can survive the cold shoulder form the media for that long. I kinda doubt it.

Wait, what? Rudy's been fluffed by the media almost nonstop for ages, with the honeymoon only ending recently. And now that he's running nonstop on fear and 9/11, we'll see if it gets him anywhere. But the idea that the media has been unkind to Rudy is nonsense.


WINNERS:
Barack Obama: He really did blow away the field, and that gives him momentum heading into New Hampshire, where the independents might flock to him the way they did to McCain in 2000.

John McCain: People still don't believe Huckabee is going to be the guy, and voters looking to head towards someone they believe has the proper experience in foreign policy now see McCain as the guy.

LOSERS:
John Edwards: I disagree with our dear Haskins here in one area -- he finished second, but second place in Iowa is bogus when he basically threw it all down there. Adding in his gaffe in his speech, and it doesn't look good headed into NH, where he's running third.

Rudy Giuliani: Sixth place, and this is a viable candidate? That strategy of holding off -- which will also likely involve losing in Michigan, Nevada, NH and South Carolina -- may seem foolhardy when people in Florida go to the polls and figure there's no point in voting for a guy who doesn't have the chance. He'll win the NY and NJ primaries, but you've got to get out the vote nationally. Maybe he can come back, but he seems awfully disinterested, to be honest.

MIXED:
Hillary Clinton: She could and should have won here, but she's still winning in New Hampshire. If she wins there, the whole table gets reset, yet again. If she loses -- and the voters in S.C. go for Obama, well, then it gets worse for sure. But I'm not ready to declare her out - she works too hard, and has too much money, to go away quietly.

Ron Paul: Sure, he finished 5th with a nice surprising 9% showing. But he's polling around 9% in N.H., too, the kind of state that should embrace a guy like him. I think I agree with Mr. Haskins, who said a while back that the worst decision the guy made was to run as a Republican.

[larocca]

Giuliani scares me more than Reagan or either Bush ever did, so the real winner here is USA.

Stunned at John Edwards' success -- he's a hometown boy done good. Not much older than me, but I won't hold it against him. The Who said to trust no one over 30, but in fact I trust no one under 50. I think he's over, but I'd have to card him to make sure.

Thrilled to see Obama, who I just really liked on Leno, doing so well. I do love intelligence, which I guess makes me a pariah, but I don't care. I'm impressed with this guy.

I used to tell this joke that I left the US during a Clinton administration (true) and would return during a Clinton administration (B.S.), so I'm a Hillary fan too although I actually had Chelsea in mind. In my lifetime, Bill's the best president not named Jimmy Carter, and he was far more effective than Jimmy Carter (alas), but I believe Hillary would do even better. Sorry, Bill.

So who's the winner here? Me, because I can duck the rotten tomatoes faster than you can throw them. HA!

Oh, and I'm running for president in 2012. Thaksin for vice president.

[larocca]

Oh, and Ron Paul's worst mistake was to use both honesty and common sense. That'll kill any politician. Doomed from the start.

[SarahinOhio]

Wait, what? Rudy's been fluffed by the media almost nonstop for ages, with the honeymoon only ending recently. And now that he's running nonstop on fear and 9/11, we'll see if it gets him anywhere. But the idea that the media has been unkind to Rudy is nonsense.

I don't believe I said that.

I simply meant that he's going to be mostly ignored. The bright lights are focused elsewhere for now. That's all.

[TheGaffer]

Ah, ok. I misunderstood your use of the phrase "cold shoulder."

[SarahinOhio]

Yes, I should have been clearer.

[Bravo]

I think I agree with Mr. Haskins, who said a while back that the worst decision the guy made was to run as a Republican.

i disagree with that.

i think it's brilliant because he gets a lot more exposure through debates and interviews this way.

he'll run as a 3rd candidate on a month or so.

[Shadow_Ferret]

I find it interesting that Hillary didn't even win among women voters.

[William Haskins]

and that edwards lost among union voters.

[larocca]

So do I, ShadowFerret. When Chris Rock was riffing, I hoped it was just riffing. But alas, it was not. Why? I have no idea.

[jst5150]

Democrats:
-- Winner. Mr. Edwards, with a bullet. And South Carolina is early on the docket. Agree with earlier poster -- he's a solid VP choice, like Tim Mathison on "West Wing."
-- Co-winner. Mr. Dodd. He's the better choice for VP for any of the three candidates. So, he'll lie back and wait.
-- Loser. Mrs. Clinton. A third-place whack job, but she'll gain steam in New Hampshire.

Republicans:
-- Winner. Mr. Paul. Ten percent? He whacked Giuliani like Tony did Big Pussy. Unfortunately, that will be a skipping record wherever he goes. Ten percen -- Ten percen -- Ten percen --. He'll make a good Defense secretary.
-- Loser. Mr. Giuliani. Did I mention the whacking? The fear-speech has got to stop somewhere. We're tired and tired of it.
-- Co-loser. The Mitt Romney cyborg. By almost 10 percent? He'll pick up steam in New England but lose all momentum heading south and west (except Utah). He'll need an oil bath and some servo work before New Hampshire. Anyone got an extra gig of memory?

[jst5150]

I find it interesting that Hillary didn't even win among women voters.
No one's mentioned it, so I will ...

The Oprah Effect engages and works.

[billythrilly7th]

I think the big loser is the state of Iowa. In 2012, very few will spend that kind of money or time there. It is very unlikely that Huckabee will carry more than one or two minor states, and that's being optimistic. Obama had a great showing, but he was a big fish in a small pond.

Translation:

:cry:
"Hillary and Ron Paul lost."

[larocca]

Ron Paul got 10%? Holy shit, there goes my cynicism. I'd've given him 0.10% with my own little old vote included.

Giuliani scares the shit out of me and I live in Thailand. His failure makes me very happy. He's even scarier than Dubya, which I would've thought impossible before I heard him spew.

Hillary, I hope, regroups in New Hampshire and wherever. Aside from her misguided belief that Merkins can actually have health care -- idealistic -- she's pretty damn intelligent. There's no way I want her out of the race this early in the race. I've been a fan of hers for decades.

I'll vote for whoever the Democrats puke up, and I don't even know who I want that to be yet. But this early in the game, I want Obama and Clinton to both be in the game. And if Edwards' "two Americas" is also in play, well, that's my life too. And he's also my homey, even if I can define" homey" better than Obama and Edwards combined because I was one of three white boys in my black university. Best time of my life.

I've spent a whole lot of time listening to Richard Pryor's AND IT'S DEEP TOO collection this year. I'd vote for his dead ass in a heartbeat. I used to imitate him to my black classmates, uncensored. But I digress yet again.

Ron Paul is doomed because he has too much common sense. I dismiss all the other Republicans because they're psychotic, and I do hope that my wishful thinking syndrome works out in the end. (Fred Thompson might be an exception in the same way Arnold Schwarzeneggar might be.) Obama, Clinton and Edwards would all be good, and probably in that order, so I do hope the Democrats pick one for Prez and another for Vice Prez and get with the program before we all just get bored or start puking or both. And, unlike in 2004, I do hope that I'm allowed to vote this time even though my vote doesn't count because I'm a non-Republican in North Carolina, and why in the fuck did they disallow US because there are not enough of us to even matter?

[Bird of Prey]

Translation:

:cry:
"Hillary and Ron Paul lost."

Translation: Huckabee won. Holey moley.

[mscelina]

Personally, I think the American public are all losers at this point. Why in the hell is it necessary to extend an already tedious nomination process? I barely want to hear about the presidential race at all until June or July, and certainly not on January 3 for Christ's sake.

The candidates that will still be flopping around this summer are the ones with the most money, who can survive the economic strain of the electoral process--not the best candidates, per se, but the wealthiest. As an independent moderate, I have no clue who I'm going to vote for in November--and at this moment, very little interest. It will probably end up being the candidate who annoyed me the least during the campaign. That would exclude Obama, Clinton, Edwards, Guiliani, Romney, McCain, Thompson--and leaves me with Huckabee and Paul if they prove to be viable candidates. But who knows? Maybe I'll vote Libertarian again like I did in the Bush-Gore election. At least no one from THAT party runs the risk of annoying me with media overkill 11 months before the actual election takes place.

[nerds]

No one's mentioned it, so I will ...

The Oprah Effect engages and works.


I suppose there's truth to that but not every woman lives and breathes Oprah. I actually choose my own books to read, thanks, I don't wait for her book club to endorse them, and I do make up my own mind about things. Oprah and The View are not my sources of information on anything, either. In the real world many women object to Hillary for many reasons, some of which go back many years. There's been a cumulative effect over time.

I'll not vote for a woman just because she's a woman and I'm a woman. That would be as bad as voting against a woman just because she's a woman. There are plenty of thinking women out there who form their thoughts based on things non-Oprah, but I'm sure you are somewhat right all the same.

[blacbird]

Excellent analysis, Haskins, as usual. Although you left out the most obvious loser: Romney.

And I'm split on Giuliani. Yeah, there's certainly an argument that by staying out of Iowa and, by default, out of the political limelight for a month or more, he's lost stature. But the other argument is that he'd have been handed his ass on a stake in Iowa, given that caucus system and the kind of campaigning it requires. I think he recognized that. For Giuliani, a big loss in Iowa would have been a killer; probably better just to wait it out and try to pick up as much of the pieces as possible afterward.

The two most personable candidates, by far, the two who can really make personal contact work, are the two winners. Now, how those skills will translate into the primary states is a key question. But Obama sure didn't hurt himself with that victory speech last night.

caw

[blacbird]

-- Loser. Mr. Giuliani. Did I mention the whacking? The fear-speech has got to stop somewhere. We're tired and tired of it.

I agree with you about the fear-speech, but you do realize that Giuliani made no attempt to contest the caucuses in Iowa. He wrote it off entirely. So his numbers there are meaningless.

-- Co-loser. The Mitt Romney cyborg.[/quote]

Cyborg. I love it. Maybe we can just shorten it to "Borg": "You-will-be-assimilated. Resistance-is-futile."

caw

[blacbird]

I think the big loser is the state of Iowa. In 2012, very few will spend that kind of money or time there.

(Head-scratch, head-scratch)

In 2012, almost certainly, there will be an incumbent Pres heading one of the two parties, and that typically means little to contest in Iowa or anywhere else for that party. So, yeah, from that standpoint, you are half-correct.

The other party will be in the same kind of scramble that both parties are this year. It's that way every year. The big spender in Iowa this year was Romney, and much of his money was wasted on TV ads, which don't work very well there. He never did catch on to the dynamics of how that caucus system works, and Huckabee did.

caw

[Bartholomew]

I think that, after this election, Ron Paul will be able to win any election for any other office by a landslide. Him winning the presidential election would be one of the biggest upsets since David and Goliath. I have the feeling that his goal is not president, but congressman. If he managed to win, I would have mixed feelings about his politics, even though I really like him.

The biggest observation to make with the Republican side of this, like the Dem's side, is the number of people who showed up. The lack of interest in republican side is a HUGE statement. And the fact that 10% of the republicans actually picked a libertarian is another huge statement along the same veins.

One of the Democrats has already won. We're just waiting to see which.

[William Haskins]

I have the feeling that his goal is not president, but congressman.

given the fact that he's served as a congressman for nearly two decades, i wouldn't call that an exactly lofty goal...

[Bird of Prey]

given the fact that he's served as a congressman for nearly two decades, i wouldn't call that an exactly lofty goal...

I think we're in for a surprising result re. Dr. Paul. His message will be heard, as presidential hopefuls will be forced to examine what his allure is all about and how to incorporate his message into their own.

Bart is not wrong in that he'll be a welcome Congressional member, but I think what Bart may have been alluding to was something loftier in the way of an appointed position. Who knows. It's possible.

[William Haskins]

ron paul will be an asterisk with about as much historical weight as john anderson.

[blacbird]

ron paul will be an asterisk with about as much historical weight as john anderson.

An apt comparison. And the sad part is that Anderson was a guy genuinely worth listening to, as well. He ran, and made his points, and how many politicos from his original party paid any attention to what he said? Zero, is how many. The same thing is pretty much happening to Ron Paul. Do you see Romney, or Huckabee, or Giuliani, or McCain even mentioning his name?

caw

[Bird of Prey]

ron paul will be an asterisk with about as much historical weight as john anderson.


William, I dare to say your statement is exemplary of an out-of-touch position. You have no idea - being in relatively stable Austin - how anxiety-ridden the country is. . . .

[Bravo]

given the fact that he's served as a congressman for nearly two decades, i wouldn't call that an exactly lofty goal...

thank you.

[poetinahat]

William, I dare to say your statement is exemplary of an out-of-touch position. You have no idea - being in relatively stable Austin - how anxiety-ridden the country is. . . .

Isn't that exactly what got Bush another four years? It kept Howard in office in Australia well past his time. The fear of the untried, the devil you know, and all that.

(Sorry for the sniper attack; I have very little to say. You just happened to trip one of my few wires!)

[Bird of Prey]

An apt comparison. And the sad part is that Anderson was a guy genuinely worth listening to, as well. He ran, and made his points, and how many politicos from his original party paid any attention to what he said? Zero, is how many. The same thing is pretty much happening to Ron Paul. Do you see Romney, or Huckabee, or Giuliani, or McCain even mentioning his name?

caw


zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. . . . .

[William Haskins]

William, I dare to say your statement is exemplary of an out-of-touch position. You have no idea - being in relatively stable Austin - how anxiety-ridden the country is. . . .

sometimes i come out of my ivory tower, though.

in 2007 i spent time in chicago, st. louis, san francisco, detroit, LA, new york city, as well as my hometown (which is all but crumbling under poverty and gang crime).

i say this as diplomatically as i can: we've interacted a great deal online and several times off the boards, but you don't know shit to speculate on how and where i grew up, the things i've done and the the things i've witnessed in my life and the people in my family and circle of friends who've suffered.

so don't preach to me.

[blacbird]

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. . . . .

Yeah. That's pretty much the reaction Paul's candidacy is getting from about 90% of the electorate. I do hope, however, that he maintains his Iowa numbers for a few races, just to nibble at the other major Repubs, especially Romney and Giuliani.

But you just keep rootin' for that big landslide election of Ron Paul, and come back here and tell us all about it when it happens.

caw

[Bird of Prey]

Isn't that exactly what got Bush another four years? It kept Howard in office in Australia well past his time. The fear of the untried, the devil you know, and all that.

(Sorry for the sniper attack; I have very little to say. You just happened to trip one of my few wires!)


Totally legit, Poet. The point that I'm making is that certain of my fellow AWers are predicating this election on a history that has no relevance. It's a brave and very suspicious New World: cynical, fully computerized, analytical, up-to-date and willing to take them on, even with regard to Paul. The New are willing to go full throttle to a new beginning, and those that are smugly dismissive are missing a key component: NOW as opposed to THEN.

[Bird of Prey]

Yeah. That's pretty much the reaction Paul's candidacy is getting from about 90% of the electorate. I do hope, however, that he maintains his Iowa numbers for a few races, just to nibble at the other major Repubs, especially Romney and Giuliani.

But you just keep rootin' for that big landslide election of Ron Paul, and come back here and tell us all about it when it happens.

caw

Or you might try understanding why he has appeal, but of course I recognize your rigidity in thinking, bbird. To quote you: sad that.

[Bird of Prey]

sometimes i come out of my ivory tower, though.

in 2007 i spent time in chicago, st. louis, san francisco, detroit, LA, new york city, as well as my hometown (which is all but crumbling under poverty and gang crime).

i say this as diplomatically as i can: we've interacted a great deal online and several times off the boards, but you don't know shit to speculate on how and where i grew up, the things i've done and the the things i've witnessed in my life and the people in my family and circle of friends who've suffered.

so don't preach to me.

Then demonstrate it for a change. I don't preach to you, nor have I ever. But I'll be goddamned if you're going to stand back and give me a deadpan feedback when you - supposedly and admittedly through your cross country experience - have your finger on the pulse of America. Buck up and give me a position instead of this critical, crapass shitting on other people's opinions. Anybody can do that. I want to hear it, Haskins. WEIGH IN.

[billythrilly7th]

I think we're in for a surprising result re. Dr. Paul. His message will be heard, as presidential hopefuls will be forced to examine what his allure is all about and how to incorporate his message into their own.

It's official.

I am no longer the king of messageboard ridiculousness.
:(

Congrats, BoP.

Wear it well.

The king is dead. Long live the king.

[William Haskins]

Then demonstrate it for a change. I don't preach to you, nor have I ever. But I'll be goddamned if you're going to stand back and give me a deadpan feedback when you - supposedly and admittedly through your cross country experience - have your finger on the pulse of America. Buck up and give me a position instead of this critical, crapass shitting on other people's opinions. Anybody can do that. I want to hear it, Haskins. WEIGH IN.

first off, there was nothing deadpan or flippant about it. ron paul will mean nothing in the long run. he will join in a long line of protest candidates who were never anything more than canvases upon which strange designs were painted by people who created from them the image they wanted to see.

in peacetime with universal healthcare and a good national economy, you'd be on these boards calling ron paul a woman-hating zealot who wants to wreck social security and dismantle public education.

he is a vessel on which you pin your discontent. nothing more.

pat buchanan has run 3 times. how many times have you voted for him or otherwise supported him? i defy you to find three substantial issues on which he varies, except perhaps by degree, from paul.

secondly, i never said i have my finger on the pulse of america. that's your usual mockery meant to undermine my point—which, of course, is that your earlier comment (that i'm "out of touch") is both untrue and an insult.

as for weighing in, i know (and others here who are not intellectually dishonest assholes know) that i've weighed in on just about every political position in the american spectrum in my body of posts here.

i've often expressed support for (and have voted for) third party candidates, but always as a means of breaking the two party system.

but the notion that paul is our savior is delusion.

[Bird of Prey]

first off, there was nothing deadpan or flippant about it. ron paul will mean nothing in the long run. he will join in a long line of protest candidates who were never anything more than canvases upon which strange designs were painted by people who created from them the image they wanted to see.

in peacetime with universal healthcare and a good national economy, you'd be on these boards calling ron paul a woman-hating zealot who wants to wreck social security and dismantle public education.

he is a vessel on which you pin your discontent. nothing more.

pat buchanan has run 3 times. how many times have you voted for him or otherwise supported him? i defy you to find three substantial issues on which he varies, except perhaps by degree, from paul.

secondly, i never said i have my finger on the pulse of america. that's your usual mockery meant to undermine my point—which, of course, is that your earlier comment (that i'm "out of touch") is both untrue and an insult.

as for weighing in, i know (and others here who are not intellectually dishonest assholes know) that i've weighed in on just about every political position in the american spectrum in my body of posts here.

i've often expressed support for (and have voted for) third party candidates, but always as a means of breaking the two party system.

but the notion that paul is our savior is delusion.

Nobody said he was a savior. He has a message worth paying attention to. That's it. I've carried on near incessantly about a third party with rarely a peep of support from you. In fact I don't remember any. But heh, not to worry: not your job. But don't think for a minute that your analysis of my positions can't be as equally insulting or erroneous or subject to mockery as any of my superficial observations about you. And I'll even leave it at that, without resorting to the obvious prejudice underlying it all, MR. Haskins.

[billythrilly7th]

William, I dare to say your statement is exemplary of an out-of-touch position.

BoP, I dare to say your statement regarding William's out of touch position is completely out of touch.

Ron Paul will be featured at the 3:14 mark of the 2010 VH1 Show..

"I Love 2008!: 3D"

http://www.kepplerspeakers.com/literature/Black-M.jpg

"I voted for Rupaul. I thought he would have made a fine President. Just the right combo of muscle and sensitivity.........Oh, Ron Paul?.....Who?"

[William Haskins]

And I'll even leave it at that, without resorting to the obvious prejudice underlying it all, MR. Haskins.

don't you fucking call me a sexist again, you hear me?

i'm sick of it. if the mods want to ban me for this, bring it the fuck on.

i've endured your accusations of fascism, racism and sexism for the last goddamn time. i've never treated you any differently than i treated pen or greg or IG or anyone i've gotten into spirited debate with here.

quit hiding behind your uterus and take your fucking lumps like everybody else. your misguided notion that you should be treated differently because you're a woman is the very definition of sexism.

grow the fuck up.

[Opty]

Hear, hear!

Completely agree, Haskins.

[Bird of Prey]

grow the fuck up.


I would suggest you do the same. I won't be intimidated by these temper tantrums, William. You and I both know you've not been accused of anything like fascism, racism, etc.

[William Haskins]

i credit you with the intelligence to recognize that your pre-edit post was laughable in the face of your quote.

and i won't bother digging through the archives for the others you deny.

others who've been here a while know it—and, even if they don't, you and i do.

but, by all means, continue your passive-aggressive charade.

[TheGaffer]

sometimes i come out of my ivory tower, though.

in 2007 i spent time in chicago, st. louis, san francisco, detroit, LA, new york city, as well as my hometown (which is all but crumbling under poverty and gang crime).


boy,things have really changed in mayberry, huh.

[SherryTex]

Wow...I suppose I'll be burried alive for saying I'm a Huckabee supporter...Gasp...oh no!

And please don't email me how wrong he is on certain issues. The reality is there isn't a candidate out there that isn't something of a compromise. That's what politics ultimately are about, which is why few of us love it, because policy is the crafting of a compromise most of the time, and campaigns are not about compromises but ideals.

I had a different take on this whole thing, but then I guess I would, being a Huckabee backer, I thought what was interesting, was the level of turn out on both sides, Republican and Democrat, and that the two candidates that are NOT establishment, won first. Everyone is analysing who came in second and third, but if Hillary had come in first, no one would be doing this. All the talk would be she's inevitable.

Obama vs. Huckabee wasn't certainly in the Vegas books as anything but easy money for the bookees, but to me, it would be a win win, as both believe what they say and either would be a breath of fresh air in an office that is now many elections stale.

Will say, living just outside the beltway, it doesn't feel that anxious to me, just desirous of a fresh start.

[blacbird]

pat buchanan has run 3 times. how many times have you voted for him or otherwise supported him? i defy you to find three substantial issues on which he varies, except perhaps by degree, from paul.

Ron Paul is sweeter. Pat Buchanan is a meanie, you can see it in his constricted facial features. Other than that . . . uh . . . uhhhhh . . . . . .

caw

[blacbird]

Or you might try understanding why he has appeal, but of course I recognize your rigidity in thinking, bbird. To quote you: sad that.

You really don't read posts too carefully, do you Prey? At least sometimes. I've said, repeatedly, that I have considerable respect for Paul and his candidacy, even when I find his positions neither particularly new or enlightening. I'm glad he's out there, making some effort to challenge the empty suits of the Republican field. I just posted a new thread pointing out the hypocritical bastuds at Fox News who have snubbed Paul in the Jan. 6 Republican debates. But I'm trying, in this and other political threads here, to be an analyst, and not an advocate. You don't seem to be able to do that.

Look, Haskins asked us to predict the Iowa caucus results, and hey, damn if I didn't pretty much nail it. Over the weekend, I'll give my thoughts on New Hampshire. Meantime, you get angry because we don't join you in forecasting some miraculous political sea-change that will sweep Ron Paul into the Oval Office. There's a difference between advocacy and reality. Really good political advisors understand this, and operate accordingly.

So, here it is: Ron Paul is not going to be the next POTUS. Not going to happen. I'll bet you a nickel. You game?

caw

[blacbird]

in 2007 i spent time in chicago, st. louis, san francisco, detroit, LA, new york city, as well as my hometown (which is all but crumbling under poverty and gang crime).

Yah, me too. I grew up on the bad side of the railroad tracks (literally), up dere in Cedar Falls, ya know, with all dem Norwegians, we had ta always look out for dem, ya know, dey would beat us Danes all up and take our lutefisk and stinky cheeses ever chance dey could, you betcha.

Someday, by golly, I gotta tell ya about da walkin' ta school I had ta do, through da snow uphill both ways, and such. Real terrible it was, ya know.

caw

[Bartholomew]

given the fact that he's served as a congressman for nearly two decades, i wouldn't call that an exactly lofty goal...


I think what Bart may have been alluding to was something loftier in the way of an appointed position. Who knows. It's possible.

I see a huge difference between being congressman, and being congressman after making yourself well-liked as a presidential candidate. The man has garnered a rabid following, and that can only give him more punch in whatever position he decides to take.

ron paul will be an asterisk with about as much historical weight as john anderson.

An apt comparison. And the sad part is that Anderson was a guy genuinely worth listening to, as well. He ran, and made his points, and how many politicos from his original party paid any attention to what he said? Zero, is how many. The same thing is pretty much happening to Ron Paul. Do you see Romney, or Huckabee, or Giuliani, or McCain even mentioning his name?


I agree, but I also don't particularly care how much historical weight a candidate has. He's a good politician with a genuine passion about the United States. It's heartening to know that such a thing can still exist. It's really nice to hear a politician get behind a podium and mean every word he says.


in peacetime with universal healthcare and a good national economy, you'd be on these boards calling ron paul a woman-hating zealot who wants to wreck social security and dismantle public education.

he is a vessel on which you pin your discontent. nothing more.


I think that pretty much sums up Ron Paul. He snatched up the disillusioned among us at the right opportunity. If nothing else, I think he may well have inspired a good number of people to vote when they might otherwise not have. The internet is a pretty good place to find people that don't vote. :)

I'm committing my vote elsewhere--probably to Edwards. I still have a while to think.

Ron Paul has identified that the country needs change, and on that point I agree with him completely. But the economy has been OK before without dismantling large portions of the government. When all is said in done, I just don't have that much faith in the state of Kansas as a governing body.

[Bird of Prey]

You really don't read posts too carefully, do you Prey? At least sometimes. I've said, repeatedly, that I have considerable respect for Paul and his candidacy, even when I find his positions neither particularly new or enlightening. I'm glad he's out there, making some effort to challenge the empty suits of the Republican field. I just posted a new thread pointing out the hypocritical bastuds at Fox News who have snubbed Paul in the Jan. 6 Republican debates. But I'm trying, in this and other political threads here, to be an analyst, and not an advocate. You don't seem to be able to do that.

Look, Haskins asked us to predict the Iowa caucus results, and hey, damn if I didn't pretty much nail it. Over the weekend, I'll give my thoughts on New Hampshire. Meantime, you get angry because we don't join you in forecasting some miraculous political sea-change that will sweep Ron Paul into the Oval Office. There's a difference between advocacy and reality. Really good political advisors understand this, and operate accordingly.

So, here it is: Ron Paul is not going to be the next POTUS. Not going to happen. I'll bet you a nickel. You game?

caw

Nobody said he would be. All I have done is defended his message, bbird. That's it. I've also told you who I would probably vote for. I don't get angry. I'm not forecasting anything. He's worth listening to and I understand his appeal. And he will have an impact on the elections.

[joetrain]

I think we're in for a surprising result re. Dr. Paul. His message will be heard, as presidential hopefuls will be forced to examine what his allure is all about and how to incorporate his message into their own.


this would be interesting, ron paul having a perot effect, as when the independent inadvertently forced bush and clinton to discuss the deficit. it may be paul's biggest shot at the history books (at least the next few editions). personally, i'd like to see some of his positions discussed, or even hijacked, by the viable candidates. he's worked his ass off to have some consideration. but he could just as easily disappear into the 3rd party historical fog.

[Joe270]

Everybody can grow the fuck up, as stated earlier.

Blac's point is well stated, viewpoints were sought, and he gave a very sober, considered point of view. Some disagree. Fine. Disagree without attacking the guy who posted what was asked of him in the first place.

Let's just let up from the pointed barbs intended to light up the named posters.

BoP, Haskins, you need each other's posts to counter and then post rebuttals. It's a symbiotic relationship. It's better to keep it cool than end the conversation.

Now touch gloves and come out punching.

[Dawno]

I couldn't agree more with Joe - time and time again I ask you to all debate the issues and leave your opinions of one another out of it.

I came to hear what you think about the candidates, the issues. Doubtless others did too. Nobody wins points here for "cleverly" uncovering some other member's alleged flaws, biases, etc., and frankly it's rude of anyone who does that to assume we're all so dense we can't figure it out for ourselves.

I, and I don't doubt many others who would participate more here if this kind of crap weren't happening on a regular basis, don't care what you think of each other. We do care what all the participants are saying about the topic.

If you write passionately about anything you'll piss someone off. If you're passionate about anything then people with different perspectives will piss you off. It's so obvious that you're probably rolling your eyes at dumb ol' Dawno stating the obvious yet again, but from my perspective many of you keep forgetting all this in the heat of the moment and your fingers just fly over the keys, hit "Post Reply" without taking a bit of a breather to get some perspective.

Now, get back to the topic and play hard and honestly and passionately, but leave the personality conflicts out of it.

[Bartholomew]

A campaign e-mail from Ron Paul's staff says:

And, entrance polls showed that Ron Paul took first place (29%) among independent Republicans!

Can someone tell me what this means?

[William Haskins]

it means that 3 out of 10 self-defined "independent republicans" who were asked on their way into the straw poll expressed support for paul. so, those people were obviously outnumbered by party-line republicans sufficiently to drop paul's overall support to 1 in 10 (since he got 10%).

make sense?

[Bartholomew]

it means that 3 out of 10 self-defined "independent republicans" who were asked on their way into the straw poll expressed support for paul. so, those people were obviously outnumbered by party-line republicans sufficiently to drop paul's overall support to 1 in 10 (since he got 10%).

make sense?

Yep. Thanks. :)