How critical are the early primaries

[BillyDkid]

I used to think it was absolutely that we had to do very well in the early primaries and caucuses, but then it occurred to me that this campaign is fundamentally different from any other campaign that has been run. Ron Paul's funding will not dry up as the result of a disappointing result in a primary. I believe almost all of us donors will not give up until the and will keep giving and fighting all the way through. What might be a death blow to another candidate would not neccessarily derail Ron Paul and most of us could not imagine supporting any of the other candidates. I think the MSM is in no way prepared for what is going to happen. I think this campaign will represent a sea change in American politics.

[Ridiculous]

The early primaries are very critical to Paul. Most people who vote on Super Tuesday, don't even start paying attention to the elections until the early primaries. Most voters haven't even watched a debate yet. An early win is crucial.

[klamath]

NH win or it is over.

[justinc.1089]

Its simple on how important they are to Ron Paul since he is without major media support:

1st Primary 1st Place= In the race, very possible to win other primaries

Anything other than 1st place Paul doesn't stand a chance. He has to make his stand in the very first election because he has no where else to make a stand.

The other candidates could make a come back because people know about them thanks to the media. Its possible for them to lose some early states and still win later states, but that is not very possible for Paul because he will be depending on name recognition and momentum from winning the very first election. If he doesn't get that, or at least come in second, there is extremely little hope left.

[uncloned21]

The early primaries are very critical to Paul. Most people who vote on Super Tuesday, don't even start paying attention to the elections until the early primaries. Most voters haven't even watched a debate yet. An early win is crucial.

2nd

It will be a big difference, but not the end of the world as long as we get 3rd++

[Sematary]

NH win or it is over.

I wouldn't go that far but a first or second place finish would give him street cred he can't get anywhere else. A first place would cement his name in the following primaries. It's all about name recognition and a first place in NH would get him that.

Of course, we can get him alot of press and name recognition on November 10 - so BE THERE! :D

[paulitics]

Lets not kid ourselves. After the first few primaries there will be consolidation where they may only be 2 or 3 competitors, less neocons to split the war vote.. If we don't kick butt and take names we will have no chance in later states. I mean zilch. The later states will be about 10 times more difficult than winning NH. NH , MI, etc can bring us that extra momentum that can give us a shot at victory.

[Original_Intent]

I think (and I am no expert) that a NH win and strong showing in Iowa gives us a very good chance. 2nd in NH would still be positive, but much less so. 3rd in NH we would be back to "longest of the long shot" status and anything less we might as well plan on writing Ron Paul in or figuring out what the next step is for building our movement.

[klamath]

I wouldn't go that far but a first or second place finish would give him street cred he can't get anywhere else. A first place would cement his name in the following primaries. It's all about name recognition and a first place in NH would get him that.

Of course, we can get him alot of press and name recognition on November 10 - so BE THERE! :D

I am not trying to be negatve but I don't want anyone to think we can win after losing NH otherwise people won't put the full effort into winning that state. A number of candidates will drop out after NH and judging by what I have seen their votes will not go to RP.

For those people that think a loss in NH is no big deal PLEASE TELL ME WHAT STATE WE CAN WIN AFTER THAT???

[kylejack]

I think (and I am no expert) that a NH win and strong showing in Iowa gives us a very good chance. 2nd in NH would still be positive, but much less so. 3rd in NH we would be back to "longest of the long shot" status and anything less we might as well plan on writing Ron Paul in or figuring out what the next step is for building our movement.

I think this is about right. This is mostly because New Hampshire is possibly the softest state in the nation for us, and if we can't do well there, it will prove that enough wasn't done to win later states.

[stevedasbach]

He has to substantially beat expectations in Iowa, and then win (or finish a strong second) in New Hampshire. Fortunately, the polling that we bitch about all the time virtually assures that he will do much better in Iowa than the pre-primary polls indicate.

[klamath]

No one can answer my question. What state is he going to win? We can't go to the convention and win with 50 second place finishes.

[me3]

I am not trying to be negatve but I don't want anyone to think we can win after losing NH otherwise people won't put the full effort into winning that state. A number of candidates will drop out after NH and judging by what I have seen their votes will not go to RP.
McCain won NH and didn't win the nomination. NH is very important, but the message you are sending is very negative, it's one of defeatism. NH is just one step on the journey, an important first one, but until the field thins, we won't know where we stand. The "likely republican voters" in the polls are not our base.


For those people that think a loss in NH is no big deal PLEASE TELL ME WHAT STATE WE CAN WIN AFTER THAT???
South Carolina, Nevada, Wyoming, potentially California, Texas, Washington, Oregon.

[kylejack]

Also, some states are proportional. I suspect we'll take the San Francisco Bay Area.

[JMann]

No worse than 3rd in Iowa and a win NH are a must. If Paul is shut out of the first four contest it is over. That doesn't mean he can't stay in until February 5th but he won't win.

Reminds me of aught four when Edwards lost several southern states by slim margins because of Wesley Clark essentially eliminating his chance of gaining the nomination. I don't remember the details now but Edwards won SC and lost GA, VA and TN because of Clark. Edwards would of won Oka if Clark had been out. Without Clark there is probably better than 50% chance Edwards would of taken over after the southern primary.

[klamath]

McCain won NH and didn't win the nomination. NH is very important, but the message you are sending is very negative, it's one of defeatism. NH is just one step on the journey, an important first one, but until the field thins, we won't know where we stand. The "likely republican voters" in the polls are not our base.


South Carolina, Nevada, Wyoming, potentially California, Texas, Washington, Oregon.

Nevada maybe. Ok now explain to me the demographics of South Carolina,, Wyoming, potentially California, Texas, Washington, Oregon that would make these states more likely to vote for RP after losing Iowa and NH?

[koob]

NH is important. but i think we'll win that. i'm very confident in that state.

[me3]

Nevada maybe. Ok now explain to me the demographics of South Carolina,, Wyoming, potentially California, Texas, Washington, Oregon that would make these states more likely to vote for RP after losing Iowa and NH?
They aren't filled with defeatist Ron Paul supporters?

[klamath]

[QUOTE=me3;306323]They aren't filled with defeatist Ron Paul supporters?[/QUOTE

No there is a difference between being able to see in the future what are the critical must win battles and defeatism. There can be no complacency about NH.

My question was serious, If you can really break down the voting demographics and show me how RP can pull off wins in those states I would be happy to concede.

I happen to be from California and know that the average voter here does not vote for a maverick that has lost every state up to that point.

[DeadheadForPaul]

NH is our best hope because it is small, very libertarian, and very independent. If we can't win in NH, we can't win anywhere