Wednesday, January 4, 2012

Ron Paul finishes third in Iowa

Good Day all!

If you've known me for more than 30 seconds, or if you have actually visited this blog, you know I'm a huge fan of Ron Paul. The reasons are numerous, and I one of these days I'll write a "why you should vote for Ron Paul" post.

Last night was the first real test of the campaigns. Mitt Romney won with 25%, just 6 or 7 votes ahead of Rick Santorum (also 25%). Ron Paul finished third with 22%. The rest were all so far behind that it's not worth mentioning. For those who think it matters, Newt Gingrich finished fourth with 13%.

I am disappointed, encouraged, and optimistic about the future of the Ron Paul campaign. Here's why ...


  • We lost. Plain and simple. There's no way to look at it other than Ron Paul didn't get enough votes to win this race.
  • Rick Santorum came out of nowhere and captured two key elements that SHOULD be supporting Ron Paul; 1) Homeschoolers and 2) Evangelical Christians. It is yet another example of Christians allowing Glenn Beck and the media to do their thinking for them. To believe that Rick Santorum supports homeschooling and, as a Roman Catholic, Evangelical Christian values is an absurdity that could only happen in 21st century America. And yet, here we are.
  • Mitt Romney hasn't moved. He still has the same base of support and is heading to his home area of New England to probably solidly win the New Hampshire primary.


  • Ron Paul finished strong. He started out a few months ago polling in the single digits and finished last night as a top tier candidate. His momentum will continue as he is the only candidate other than Romney to be doing at all well in New Hampshire.
  • Romney stayed stagnant. Yes, he won. Good for him. But he didn't increase his support base with any significance. If you were to plot the support of the candidate on a map, you'd see that Romney has a flat line, Paul has a steadily increasing line, and the rest of the candidates steadily rose at one point, and then declined. It's a two horse race. Romney vs. Paul. The establishment vs. freedom. The banks vs. the people.
  • Paul distinguished himself as the only unique candidate AND (& this is important) showed that that message can resonate with average Republican voters.


  • Wave goodbye to Bachmann, Perry, and Huntsman. Good riddance. Bachmann was war-mongering neo-con who hated freedom (voted for the patriot act, voted for big government budgets, etc.) Perry is the neo-con's neo-con and basically a carbon copy of George Bush. (We ought to adopt a policy like the Jews have with the Holocaust when it comes to George Bush. . . "NEVER AGAIN!") Huntsman is a decent guy who never had the campaign infrastructure nor the money to ever be taken seriously. I suspect Bachmann's supporters will be split evenly among Paul and Santorum, Perry's supporters will heavily favor Romney, and Huntsman's three followers will all go to Paul. But the real gold is that this will narrow the field of choices for the "undecided voters" and "independents". Paul should be able to compete there.
  • Newt was dealt a mortal wound. Newt should have done well in Iowa. He didn't. His campaign isn't over, but it's close. I don't think his supporters will flock to Paul, but I don't think they want Romney. And when my next point comes to to pass, that will mean they'll have to support Paul.
  • Rick Santorum is a joke, and if Iowa was happening on February 3, not January 3, he wouldn't have done well at all. Which means that after he is exposed for the fraud he is, he won't so easily gain the support of those who supported him in Iowa. I mean, this guy claims to be pro-life, yet votes for budgets that give Planned Parenthood money. then he spends all his time in the Senate campaigning for war after endless war, the Patriot act, while ignoring the Sanctity of Life act (I support war when necessary. Doing so doesn't harm your pro-life credentials. Ignoring bills that will end abortion, however DO harm them). Oh, sure, he voted for the worthless partial birth abortion ban that didn't ban a single abortion, but when it came down to doing something real to protect the pre-born, he was as useful as a democrat on that issue. Not only that, but he supported campaign finance reform, supported bailouts, supported the federal reserve, supported Fannie and Freddie. And he is the undisputed KING of earmarks. He has as much dirt as Newt Gingrich, maybe more. A few weeks of ads, debates, investigative reports, and whatnot will expose that. Now, what that does for Paul is immense. People voted for Santorum because he was touted by the Establishment (Glenn Beck led this charge) as a "conservative". When people discover he's not, they won't run to Romney, that's for sure. They aren't going to run to Newt either. Guess who's left.
  • Romney is beatable. Absolutely beatable. His base is as strong as Paul's base, but he has zero appeal to conservatives beyond his base. He just can't break through that 25% mark and he won't because he is quite simply, a liberal.

I think that New Hampshire will go to Romney, but I expect Paul to do surprisingly well. I also believe that things could line up well for Paul in South Carolina. It's a three horse race, and one horse (Santorum) has terrible flaws. The crowd just hasn't seen them yet.

On to New Hampshire!

UPDATE: Ron Paul is tied for first with Romney and Santorum in delegates out of Iowa. So, in reality, Ron Paul did just as well as the two winners of the Caucus, because it is the delegates that matter.

How did this happen? Well short answer is that Paul is running a smart campaign and his people are informed. They ran all over the state for the past two weeks impressing upon their local supporters that they need to STAY after the caucus meeting to be selected as a delegate. No one else really did that. So, Paul, who should probably have received 5-6 delegates, ended up getting an additional delegate or two out of the deal.


So, we go into New Hampshire and South Carolina in a three way dead heat.

ALSO: Bachman is out. Again. . . GOOD RIDDANCE.

Digg Technorati Delicious StumbleUpon Reddit newsvine

1 comment:

  1. My wife and I were just talking about this. Ron Paul is in a very good position right now to make a serious run for the nomination.

    But Ron Paul has a huge hurdle to overcome. In order for people to seriously consider him, they will be forced to come face to face with the hypocrisy of the Republican party and themselves. They will have to come to terms with their own implicit support for endless wars, lawlessness, and the destruction of the United States economy on the basis of greed.

    Ron Paul, with conviction and integrity, actually lives by the rhetoric that the Republican party has been touting for years on the campaign trail but ignoring once in power. People fear a man of conviction because it exposes their own weaknesses.

    It reminds me of a Leonard Ravenhill quote: "One of these days some simple soul will pick up the Book of God, read it, and believe it. Then the rest of us will be embarrassed."

    We say that we want a statesman, a man of conviction, a man of integrity. But what we really want is someone just like ourselves who will not make us have to change our ways.