The Paul Campaign: Beating Expectations in Iowa—and Down the Line?

Brian Doherty | January 4, 2008

Paul partisans note with pride that, while an average of six different polls gathered at Real Clear Politics in the week or so before the Iowa caucus had Paul at 7.3 percent, he actually ended up with a result 34 percent higher. Of course, if he only exceeds the current polls by that same amount in New Hampshire, he'll still be coming in at just under 10 percent there.

If the goal of Paul's fans is to see him win the GOP nomination, that obviously won't be good enough. With the special attention both the official campaign and the enormous mass of unconnected volunteers have given the Granite State, there's no reason to assume he'll end up doing better anywhere than there if he doesn't pull off a surprising show--at least top 3. Failing that, the specific momentum of that specific goal will be hobbled.

But one thing I've learned from watching this campaign from even before it really began is that it has exceeded this old libertarian hand's expectations every step of the way, even as it has exceeded Paul's. It has done so because such a wide range of very different people get energized and excited by Paul's basic small government message when they get a chance to hear it unfiltered--mostly via YouTube and his personal appearances.

From the Paul fans I met researching my February reason cover story, I'm reasonably confident that they will not allow their enthusiasm for that message to fade, even if Paul only grazes 10 percent in New Hampshire. Paul will probably have the money to run straight through to the convention whether he wins a state or not. I don't anticipate his fundraising will dry up even through a discouraging beginning. But things Paul told me when I interviewed him for my reason story indicate (though did not promise) that he may drop out of the GOP race when the delegate count shows it's mathematically impossible for him to win.

At that point, well, he may begin considering that which he always says he has not yet considered: some sort of third party run. (I hope he does, though I'm not confident he will.) Whether or not that happens, Paul's movement is newly and deeply engaged in small-government politics, and Paulistas are eager and ready to give their money and time in support of it.

Even if they don't amount to much more than 10 percent of early caucus and primary voters here in January 2008, that is going to mean something strange and probably wonderful for American politics down the line. Think not Goldwater in 1964, who actually and surprisingly won his party's nomination; think Goldwater in 1960, a new force selling a message rooted (mostly) in individualism and liberty and making a splash whose waves wouldn't shake the establishment for years to come--but shake it they did.

In other Paul news, immediately pre-Iowa, the Christian Science Monitor ran a very thoughtful profile that gives a picture of Young Ron Paul and explores his Austrian economics background nicely, and quotes me toward the end.

Help Reason celebrate its next 40 years. Donate Now!

Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.

Russ 2000|1.4.08 @ 12:31PM|#

Ron Paul did better in the caucus than Bill Clinton did the year he won his first term.

ed|1.4.08 @ 12:33PM|#

THE FIVE STAGES OF GRIEF

Denial: "It can't be happening."
Anger: "Why me? It's not fair."
Bargaining: "Just let me live to see Ron Paul elected."
Depression: "I'm so sad, why bother with anything?"
Acceptance: Maybe Obama won't be so bad after all.

|1.4.08 @ 12:34PM|#

Ron Paul did 34% better than polls in a state where his ideas aren't so welcome (unless many voted for him strictly based on his stance on illegal immigration, though I doubt it)

In New Hampshire I would expect that percentage to jump to at least 50% (and hopefully a lot more than that, but I won't hold my breath)

.|1.4.08 @ 12:38PM|#

Ron Paul did better in the caucus than Bill Clinton did the year he won his first term.

Yes.. But the Democrats didn't have a sizable group of crazy Christians that would vote for one of their own even if his platform was "Nuke the non-believers" (would probably improve Huckabee's numbers among evangelicals, actually) and another sizable group that thought more spending + lower taxes = good.

Paul's problem is that the Republican party is not a small government party.

.|1.4.08 @ 12:40PM|#

Let's not forget the faction that thinks our middle east policy is good, either.

iowan|1.4.08 @ 12:40PM|#

Ron Paul is no worse than he was two days ago.

The problem is that he is no better either.

Jesse Walker|1.4.08 @ 12:44PM|#

Ron Paul did better in the caucus than Bill Clinton did the year he won his first term.

I'm afraid that isn't a meaningful comparison. Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin was running for president in 1992, and the other candidates ceded his home state to him without a fight.

Guy Montag|1.4.08 @ 12:48PM|#

Geebuz! Dr. Paul and his Pauloids in Iowa got a glowing report from The New Republic right before the caucus. Taht alone must have been good for 10 votes.

Sam Grove|1.4.08 @ 12:49PM|#

Let's see how fund raising goes now.

Giuliani is low, as is Thompson.

Huckabee is scary to a lot of people for different reasons.

And I'm still way below my contribution limit to Ron Paul.

|1.4.08 @ 12:50PM|#

Does anyone know why the results (both the MSM projected results and the precinct results reported by poll watchers) stopped being updated around midnight?

Here's the history of the Iowa Caucus results. The Dem Caucus of 76 is pretty funny.

TLB|1.4.08 @ 12:51PM|#

The real story is that Gravel did 128.4% better than predicted.

Also, I'd like to remind everyone that it's not yet Black Nikes Time. Repeat, it is not The Time. Counselors are standing by at each Ron Paul commune in NH. Look on The Card for your local House, and don't hesitate to call if you have any of The Feelings.

|1.4.08 @ 12:52PM|#

contribution limit

Fuck, I hate that phrase. Never use it again, Sam. ;-)

|1.4.08 @ 12:53PM|#

"""Paul's problem is that the Republican party is not a small government party."""

Right.

Nor a fiscal conservative party.
Nor a non-interventionist party.
Nor do they desire to honor the Constitution.
Then again, when did were they?

|1.4.08 @ 12:56PM|#

Then again, when did were they?

1964?

Also, I love it when TheLoneWhackoff tells other people they're the real CrazyOnes.

|1.4.08 @ 12:57PM|#

Guy, you over-estimate TNR's circulation.

Sam Grove|1.4.08 @ 1:04PM|#

Ron Paul did better in the caucus than Bill Clinton did the year he won his first term.

The important point is that Iowa voted for Huckabee.

A Huckabee nomination woull give the independent voters to the Democrats.

The Iowa caucus is all about Iowa.

Jay D|1.4.08 @ 1:05PM|#

he may drop out of the GOP race when the delegate count shows it's mathematically impossible for him to win.

That's a bad idea in the case of a brokered convention. Fight to the end for every delegate. Anything can happen, right?... right?

The AntiHumanist|1.4.08 @ 1:07PM|#

I understand the excitement, but I also understand that I'm not alone in declaring that no matter how well Paul does, nothing else is accomplished but momentary self-satisfaction. Paul's candidacy is not the beginning of a trend: none of the other candidates are adopting Paul's stances, nor will we witness either a courting of the libertarian vote or more libertarian governance in the future. Ultimately, irrational populism will prevail, and we all will be considering which other candidate is the least evil--or whether we should vote, at all.

|1.4.08 @ 1:10PM|#

Fifth place was disappointing, but 10% is enough to stay in the race and still be taken seriously by undecided voters.

Third place was oh so close -- Ron Paul had enough support in Iowa to pull it off, they just decided to stay home and watch TV.

The media is spinning Huckabee's crushing defeat of Romney as a win for McCain, who has a better shot at beating Mitt in New Hampshire now.

That's pretty indefensible, given that McCain received only 13% of the vote in Iowa, basically tied with Thompson who was assumed dead in the water.

Just think if 4,000 more Ron Paul supporters had bothered to vote -- they could have dealt a mortal blow to McCain's comeback chances.

Get off your couches America. Get out and vote.

New Hampshire people, don't let us down.

I still have strong hopes for the Nevada and Maine caucuses, though -- low turnout, little campaigning, and libertarian/independent leaning voters.

|1.4.08 @ 1:12PM|#

I'm as big a Paulite as anyone, but Iowa was a disaster. Paul's appeal was to the independents. After Iowa, all the independents will vote either Obama or McCain (cue The Who power couplet). Paul will still get his 10% in NH. His supporters are the most fiercely loyal. The high voter turn out hurt him. The best thing that can happen now is for a massive blizzard to strike NH next Tues.

People we still have 1 yr to go! We only had one Iowa caucus...NH is Ron Paul territory. We shall see and take it from there. NH has intellectuals and they will vote Ron Paul. Not everyone who caucuses goes to the polls in overalls and love welfare farm /nanny state subsidies.

|1.4.08 @ 1:16PM|#

"Even if they don't amount to much more than 10 percent of early caucus and primary voters here in January 2008, that is going to mean something strange and probably wonderful for American politics down the line."

Easy, Brian. We're not at Burning Man here. American politics has a long, proud tradition of taking anything "strange and probably wonderful" and gutting it like a fish.

|1.4.08 @ 1:20PM|#

Warren is right. Paul will pull his 10 percent in NH and that will be the high water mark of his campaign. The Iowa win legitimized Obama which will pull more independents regardless of his political stripes. McCain will do well in NH as he pulls the conservative independents, but he doesn't have legs for the turn south. The race will be more interested than some might have thought, but it won't be Paul making it a horse race.

Sam Grove|1.4.08 @ 1:22PM|#

I've participated in LP campaigns since Ed Clark in 1980, including 3 of my own runs for congress.

This is, by far, the most successful campaign I've ever participated in.

economist|1.4.08 @ 1:24PM|#

Is anyone as disturbed as I am that an ignorant populist like Huckabee won this primary? I think I might be getting to where I actually dislike populists worse than leftists.

Sam Grove|1.4.08 @ 1:25PM|#

Pessimism is a terribly dis-empowering disease.

|1.4.08 @ 1:29PM|#

Jose,
All true. Even so, Paul isn't going anywhere. Thompson will have to fold up soon. As will McCain if he doesn't win NH. And if he does, he may have to fold up later.

After Feb 5, it might very well be down to Romney, Giuliani and Paul. If no one has the magical number on Feb. 6, Paul could become very important.

Tammy|1.4.08 @ 1:30PM|#

"Ron Paul did better in the caucus than Bill Clinton did the year he won his first term."

Wow! I've been reading the media all day long and this is the first and only publication to even mention the name, Ron Paul.

The party's over, kids.

Peder|1.4.08 @ 1:31PM|#

What kind of delegate count would Paul need at the convention to move the needle? 5% or more?

|1.4.08 @ 1:33PM|#

Hope he stays in long enough to win a few delegates and be nominated at the convention where the nominator can tongue-lash the GOP and, maybe, embarass the few who remember what the GOP used to stand for.

I think I might be getting to where I actually dislike populists worse than leftists.

Progressivism and populism go pretty much hand in hand. I don't think that makes the Huckster a Leftist, but he certainly looks more like Teddy Roosevelt than Calvin Coolidge.

Oh, and I hate populists (of any stripe) about as much as Leftists and "Progressives."

Play-by-play announcer|1.4.08 @ 1:34PM|#

I've participated in LP campaigns since Ed Clark in 1980, including 3 of my own runs for congress.

This is, by far, the most successful campaign I've ever participated in.

A low, hanging curve to Edward.

|1.4.08 @ 1:35PM|#

I hate populists, protectionists, and evangelicals who mix their personal beliefs with government. It goes without saying Huckabee is all three.

The worst possible general election wouldn't be Rudy vs. Hillary. It would be Tax Hike Mike vs. John "ask me for another sad story" Edwards.

Jay D|1.4.08 @ 1:36PM|#

All true. Even so, Paul isn't going anywhere.

Are they selling "Don't blame me, I voted for RON PAUL" bumper stickers yet?

|1.4.08 @ 1:37PM|#

Tammy -
The LA Times mentioned him in this context:

The Huckabee win in Iowa served to widen the race on the Republican side, giving former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, Sen. John McCain of Arizona and Rep. Ron Paul of Texas openings to make progress in New Hampshire.

And Sam Groove -
Pessimism is a terribly dis-empowering disease.

That is absolutely correct. We didn't get paul to 10% in Iowa with pessimism, and we won't get him any further with pessimism either.

Color guy|1.4.08 @ 1:37PM|#

Pessimism is a terribly dis-empowering disease.

I don't know what Sam Grove is thinking. Edward is going to make this veteran pitcher pay.

haha,
Sam *Grove*

Guy Montag|1.4.08 @ 1:38PM|#

Are they selling "Don't blame me, I voted for RON PAUL" bumper stickers yet?

Noth that I know of, but printing them on $100 "Federal Reserve Notes" would be kewell!

|1.4.08 @ 1:41PM|#

I agree with Warren. Paul has a non-negligeable base, and staying power, in a race that may not be decided until very late in the game because of a sharply-divided primary electorate.

David Rollins|1.4.08 @ 1:41PM|#

and another sizable group that thought more spending + lower taxes = good

Easy there, dot. This is the Reagan legacy you're talking about.

Some of us anarcho-capitalists can get behind this platform again. Think massive deflation of the dollar, followed by privatisation and sale of gov't assets. (How much am I bid to run the interstate highway system? Postal Service? Medicare?)

If Paul loses, I'll vote for whichever candidate promises to lower taxes the most. The Club for Growth will do the same.

|1.4.08 @ 1:43PM|#

Lower taxes+more spending=lie.

Balanced budget, please!

Funny how CNN lumps Paul in with Richardson, Kucinich and Hunter, who got "slaughtered" in their words. CNN has proven to be the biggest joke of this entire election. First, leaving a big gray area on their pie chart instead of showing Paul's information; now this. What a joke...I think Paul supporters should seriously consider a boycott of CNN - they're making Paul look bad and/or ignoring him when he did far better than they predicted, and that blatant bias is as bad as Fox excluding him from the debate, in my opinion.

I'm no Huckabee fan, but at least he supports the FairTax/abolishing the IRS & income tax; and he's been critical of Bush's foreign policy. That's better than most of the other Republicans have offered, despite his social authoritarianism. I wouldn't mind President Obama, who is a moderate-left libertarian and better than all the other candidates except Paul in my opinion. Hopefully Republicans can keep his spending and welfare proposals under wraps, but he's more libertarian on almost any issue than his Dem competitors.

iowan|1.4.08 @ 1:48PM|#

Some time ago, Paul said that it didn't matter if he came in 5th in Iowa because he was funded through Feb 5th.

The only viable route for Ron is to take 3rd or better in NH, exceed expectations in SC, then steal some delegates Feb 5.

Ron was never going to win the nomination though the primary process. His small, but non-zero, probability of getting the nomination rests upon a topsy-turvy, brokered convention.

Nothing has changed.

|1.4.08 @ 1:49PM|#

highnumber|1.4.08 @ 1:50PM|#

Nick Wilson,

FoxNews didn't show him, either. Neither did I see Paul on MSNBC. Come tho think of it, my local paper did not have any coverage. Boycott the news media in general.
Get your news from Urkobold. We cover the future!

.|1.4.08 @ 1:56PM|#

|1.4.08 @ 1:56PM|#

I believe that children are the future. Does URKOBOLD cover children?

Guy Montag|1.4.08 @ 2:02PM|#

Remember, Fred is "The Cobra" and he is just waiting to strike!

URKOBOLD\'s SOUS CHEF|1.4.08 @ 2:04PM|#

YES. THE URKOBOLD PERSONALLY COVERS CHILDREN WITH MARMALADE OR HONEY BEFORE ROASTING THEM.

THE URKOBOLD TRIED USING A THAI PEANUT SAUCE BUT HAD TO ABANDON IT AS THE CHILDREN ALL TOO OFTEN DEVELOPED HIVES, RUINING THE TASTE

R C Dean|1.4.08 @ 2:07PM|#

I think I might be getting to where I actually dislike populists worse than leftists.

The overlap in their ideas tends to be pretty large. Probably the only area where they differ meaningfully is foreign policy, where they split into lefty transnational progressives and either righty national greatness goons or righty isolationist idiots.

Does URKOBOLD cover children?

Only if they don't get off the couch quick enough when the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit video comes on.

|1.4.08 @ 2:09PM|#

FRAUD!

|1.4.08 @ 2:14PM|#

Yes, populism sucks. Populism plays on the basest instincts. Populism pays lip service to freedom, but it's not about freedom, per se. Populism is the ideology of those who, if asked to name the most important American principle, would instinctively say "the right to vote" rather than "individual liberty."

Populism creates the sort of politicians whose campaign speeches are littered with the line, "Americans want a leader who can..." It's dismissive of the fact that being "led" isn't what America was supposed to be about in the first place.

Indy's might go Obama in open primaries but for closed primary states deadlines have passed or passing right now. So by now you either have converted your voters or not.

|1.4.08 @ 2:16PM|#

Here's the data from all counties that don't have complete counts yet. It includes the % reported, Paul's % of the % reported and Paul's placement.

|1.4.08 @ 2:22PM|#

Also an interesting footnote to Iowa. I have seen first hand reports/anecdotal evidence that after the straw poll many McCain/Thompson people bolted.

What this means is that there were empty delegate slots and that many went to Paul's people. He may well end up with 5 or 6 national delegates from Iowa which in real numbers is way more then the 10% raw vote count.

|1.4.08 @ 2:27PM|#

Well, other than as tomorrow's leftovers, does the Uber-troll believe that children are the future?

Urkobold™|1.4.08 @ 2:32PM|#

joe,

ALLOW ME TO BE PERFECTLY FRANK WITH YOU...

PERFECTLY FRANK|1.4.08 @ 2:33PM|#

Children are nasty and brutish. They are obviously intending to replace us.
Of course they are the future.

|1.4.08 @ 2:50PM|#

"But the Democrats didn't have a sizable group of crazy Christians that would vote for one of their own even if his platform was "Nuke the non-believers"

Yeah, there are no crazy, partisan Democrats.

BTw, does the RP campaign give free t-shirts to hot chicks? Some foxes I know are into it.

|1.4.08 @ 2:56PM|#

Children are nasty and brutish.

Not to mention short.

|1.4.08 @ 2:59PM|#

Paul is a great libertarian - He's also a nut who believes in witchcraft.

|1.4.08 @ 3:01PM|#

"I hate populists, protectionists, and evangelicals who mix their personal beliefs with government. It goes without saying Huckabee is all three."

Huckabee is the 21st Century Republican William Jennings Bryan.

|1.4.08 @ 3:10PM|#

"All true. Even so, Paul isn't going anywhere. Thompson will have to fold up soon. As will McCain if he doesn't win NH. And if he does, he may have to fold up later."

Mike Reagan is predicting that McCain will win the nomination. McCain is in first place in the new Pew poll, ahead of Guiliani by 2%.

|1.4.08 @ 3:21PM|#

"The media is spinning Huckabee's crushing defeat of Romney as a win for McCain, who has a better shot at beating Mitt in New Hampshire now."

"That's pretty indefensible, given that McCain received only 13% of the vote in Iowa, basically tied with Thompson who was assumed dead in the water."

I believe the last poll I saw of New Hampshire shows McCain leading Romney.

Edward|1.4.08 @ 3:33PM|#

Mitt Romney isn't going to abandon his faith, and neither are the Paulistas, by God. Even if Ron Paul gets nowhere, it was worth it sending him all that money because...well, it just was.

Fluffy|1.4.08 @ 3:42PM|#

Hillary has collected a multiple of the funds Paul has collected.

If she goes on to lose the nomination, was it worth sending her all that money?

If she goes on to win the nomination, what about the vast sums given to Obama?

Only one person can win. The money given to every losing candidate is equally "wasted".

|1.4.08 @ 3:47PM|#

Rush Limbaugh was hilarious today. (I don't listen to him, but I was forced to share a car with someone who does)

He was condemning every one of his listeners who voted for Huckabee. He said that they don't have any right to criticize him for carrying water for non-conservative Republicans like Bush (he actually said this), if they're going to vote for Huckabee. Then he went off about how conservatism is all about everyone taking care of themselves, not depending on big govt, etc. If I didn't know better, I would've thought he was leading up to an endorsement of Ron Paul.

|1.4.08 @ 3:50PM|#

Fluffy,

Yeah, but if Clinton wins, she'll repay her donors and their bundlers with preferential treatment in govt contracts, jobs, etc. They might even get moved to the front of the line for medical treatment once she institutes her NationalHealthCarePlan.

If Ron Paul wins, it's unlikely he'll give out goodies to the people who gave him money.

|1.4.08 @ 3:54PM|#

"Only one person can win. The money given to every losing candidate is equally "wasted"."

That is true if the only goal is to get a person elected. In Paul's case, it is about that, but also getting a message out that is seldom heard.

I've read this paragraph about ten times and I...I...can't figure out what it means.

.|1.4.08 @ 4:18PM|#

Yeah, there are no crazy, partisan Democrats.

BTw, does the RP campaign give free t-shirts to hot chicks? Some foxes I know are into it.

Sure there are, but there's no one group where 50% of the people going to the event are part of said group and 80% of them are only going to vote for the guy that's part of the group. ;)

The point that you missed is that, when looking at the groups that make up the Republican party, only a small percentage is ideologically compatible with Ron Paul. That was not the case with Bill Clinton. Paul isn't going to win over anymore people than he already has. What percentage of the party is actually fiscally conservative constitutionalists? My guess is 10% of Iowa caucus goers are.

.|1.4.08 @ 4:19PM|#

I should add that this is assuming that his goal is to win. If his goal is just to be heard, 10% may be enough.

|1.4.08 @ 4:34PM|#

Rush Limbaugh was hilarious today. (I don't listen to him, but I was forced to share a car with someone who does)

He was condemning every one of his listeners who voted for Huckabee

It's fun watching the Republican bigwigs freak out because they've lost control of the rubes they spent so much effort building up.

If Ron Paul wins, it's unlikely he'll give out goodies to the people who gave him money.

Ron Paul won't cut taxes?

Oh, wait, the programs that put money in the hands of Ron Paul's supporters are so much more moral than those that put money in the hands of Hillary Clinton supporters.

|1.4.08 @ 4:39PM|#

cutting taxes is a program?

|1.4.08 @ 4:42PM|#

joe,

There's a big big difference between implementing a policy that happens to help some of your contributors, as well as a lot of people who weren't your contributors, and specifically doing favors for specific contributors once you get in office, as the Clintons do.

In any case, I doubt Ron Paul would lower taxes until he lowers spending anyway, and he doesn't get a lot of money from people in the upper income levels, who would benefit most from a tax cut.

|1.4.08 @ 4:49PM|#

"Oh, wait, the programs that put money in the hands of Ron Paul's supporters are so much more moral than those that put money in the hands of Hillary Clinton supporters."

With Hillary, she will give special favors to certain companies that contributed to her the way Bill did with Tyson, Hughes, Loral, the Riadis, etc.

Cutting taxes is a program when it suits joe's politics.

|1.4.08 @ 5:23PM|#

What if, assuming he's not top three, instead of going third party he cuts a deal with one of the top three GOP to publicly commit to having all troops out of Iraq, Germany, Japan, and Korea by the end of his first term. And in return Ron Paul gives him, his support.

What Republican candidate would consider that? As far as I can tell, none of them have campaigned on a foreign policy significantly different from what we have now.

None now, but if Paul arrives at the convention with a deciding number of delegates, he may have choices superior to a third party run.

It's intriguing to think the GOP could be faced with a choice: change foreign policy or lose to the Democrats. That could be the price the GOP pays for Iraq.

The Democrats are setting themselves up for this with their substance-less drum beat for "change."

Sam Grove|1.4.08 @ 5:52PM|#

"Ron Paul Could Win the Whole Thing"

Color guy|1.4.08 @ 6:12PM|#

Well, if I know Edward, we're going to see a snark on Lew Rockwell, something like, "So the anarchist nutjob thinks the Christian nutjob could win it all. I'll wait to hear what the nazi nutjobs think."

|1.4.08 @ 6:41PM|#

Apparently Nick Wilson watches a completely different CNN than most paul supporters.

We Ron Paul supporters sit at home and watch Wolf Blitzer and jack Cafferty praise Ron Paul over and over again- running segments where everyone says Ron Paul should be invited to all debates, saying that Rn Paul is a "player" since he got 10%.

CNN has given Rn Paul by far the best coverage, but some Ron Paul idiots do not live in reality and attack everyone who does not kiss RP 24/7.

|1.4.08 @ 7:11PM|#

Actually, John, many people watched the CNN show I watch which had, umm, Wolf Blitzer as the moderator. He said zip about Paul, and the big pie chart behind him that kept showing up on the screen had a big blank gray area where Paul's percentage should have been. I couldn't believe my eyes. I thought it must have been a joke.

I'm not even a strong Ron Paul supporter - I'd be almost as happy if Obama won, as long as the GOP gets Congress. I certainly don't expect them to kiss his butt 24/7, but I do expect him to get the percentage of the attention he is due, which in this case would be about 10% of the attention. He outperformed all the news media predictions. But Giuliani got more coverage than he did. Read the front page story? Paul apparently got "slaughtered" - the exact word they used, and they lumped him in with all the candidates that got < 2%.

I usually watch and read CNN, but this was total hogwash, and has made me not want to do so anymore.

|1.4.08 @ 7:32PM|#

The only viable route for Ron is to take 3rd or better in NH, exceed expectations in SC, then steal some delegates Feb 5.

The Republican race is still a mess, with Huckabee under attack from major national players, Giuliani sinking to sixth (in Iowa and now sinking in NH polls), McCain resurgent but broke, Thompson buoyed by beating McCain in Iowa, and Romney too personally invested to ever give up.

Looking at the race objectively, Ron Paul is actually in the best shape, with the most money, the ability to go back to the well for more (200,000 small donors far from maxed out), and more volunteers nationwide than anyone (80,000 in over 1,200 Meetup groups.)

So he got 10% in Iowa. Most of the experts predicted he would never even make it to Iowa. When he raised $10 million in 48 hours, they conceded that hey, he might get 5-10% of the vote in a few states and go home. I bet not one of them thought that IOWA would be at the high end of that range.

If Iowa is a 10% Ron Paul state, what does that make New Hampshire? He had twice as many donors per capita there as in Iowa.

A 10% showing makes Ron Paul look viable, for people on the fence. A win in Nevada would help even more -- a low turnout caucus state, with little competitive campaigning, and libertarian-leaning as well. Throw in a few surprises in Wyoming and Maine, and Ron Paul is a top three contender heading into February 5th.

Seriously.

paul|1.4.08 @ 8:32PM|#

Hotties for Ron Paul Calendar - ongoing interview and pics

here

and

here

If anyone has any questions go to the sites and post them in the comments.
Juliet said she would stop by and answer some time tonight.

If anyone else who was in the calendar (several of you are in my friends) wants to stop by and ask and answer questions that would be cool. Just leave comments to let us know you are there.

I can use some help with digg and reddit.

http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Several_pages_from_the_Hotties_for_Ron_Paul_Calendar

http://reddit.com/info/64hxb/comments/

Check out the rest of the site while you are there

Cannoli Wordpress

Reason Magazine

Get Reason E-mail Updates!

Site comments/questions:

Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:

Editorial & Production Offices:

advertisements