Ron Paul: More GOP contenders = better chance of GOP nomination (A look into Iowa)

[mlee45]

Let's hope Rick Perry jumps in the presidential race.....and you ask why? Because Ron Paul supporters are die-hard, and it is quite obvious that every other contender in this race have supporters that could change who they like at the flip of the coin. The more GOP contenders, the more the vote is spread out. It's safe to say that Ricky Perry jumping in the race, or any other high-profile candidate could only hurt Mitt Romney, and that's who we really have to worry about right now as he is the front runner. An article this past week titled, "Iowa 2012 GOP Presidential Power Rankings" tells us that voters in Iowa are running away from Mitt Romney, and ranks the candidates as followed.

1st- Tim Pawlenty
2nd- Herman Cain
3rd- Michelle Bachmann
4th- Ron Paul
5th- Mitt Romney

The results are based on, direct quote from the website, "if the caucuses were held tonight, this is how our group of Iowans — political activists, pundits, reporters and academics — think the night would end"


Seeing this brings great hope for Ron Paul FANS

why?

It shows that the race is very close in Iowa, the first major step in this political race. And many New Hampshire voters are going to look at these results, and decide who is viable and who is not a viable candidate to vote for....what I mean, is that the candidates that don't finish in the top 5 or 6 are going to have a huge drop off after Iowa, and will lose many votes heading into New Hampshire, because people want to vote for someone that they think can win.. If Ron Paul can win Iowa, many New Hampshire voters are going to jump on the Ron Paul political campaign for many reasons. The first and most important is that it is going to target every single person that has ever said, "I would vote for Ron Paul, but I really don't ever think he has a chance of winning" which in my opinion, could single handily increase him a good 3-5%, which is huge in such a tight political race.

If I had to rank the candidates, and how they were going to finish in Iowa, if the race were held today, I would rank them as so.

1. Tim Pawlenty 19%
2. Ron Paul 16%
3. Herman Cain 14%
4. Mitt Romney 14%
5. Michelle Bachmann 14%
6. Rick Perry 11%
7. Newt Gingrich 8%
8. Jon Huntsman 3%
9. Rick Santorum 1%
10. Gary Johnson >1%

Whether you agree with my predictions or not...It is safe to say that Ron Paul will attract around 14-16% ATLEAST


He got 10% in Iowa last time, and his campaign is already lightyears ahead of the last time around. He could even get more in my opinion, especially with an outstanding showing in Ames....

These are the results from last time....and Mike Huckabee, and atleast half or more of Mitt Romney's big percent of the vote is going to be widespread among GOP candidates...

Candidate Vote%
Mike Huckabee 40,841 34.4%
Mitt Romney 29,949 25.2
Fred D. Thompson 15,904 13.4
John McCain 15,559 13.1
Ron Paul 11,817 10.0
Rudolph W. Giuliani 4,09 3.5
Duncan Hunter 524 0.4



How Do you think IOWA will turn out if it was held today, and/or how you really think it will be?

[sailingaway]

The power rankings are based on a small panel's personal preferences. When Ron Paul commented on OBL he fell off them altogether and they explained it by saying 'any of that vote will end up going to Gary Johnson'. I would not use them as a base.

Having said that, generally the more candidates the better for Ron, EXCEPT that Gingrich takes from Ron, believe it or not. Palin does too, but even more of her supporters go to Bachmann so her not being in the race would only be good if Bachmann faded and even then Iowa is going to be Bachmann's main push. She has been courting the teaparty network there since at least January.

I can't make predictions, but what I would appreciate is game plans for the grass roots out of state.

[Aratus]

we have one glorious year until the GOP picks Obama's challeger! good point!

[mlee45]

I have to argue that the most important thing into winning Iowa is winning the Ames straw poll.....If we could pull off a win in Iowa, we would be gaining a lot of potential in New Hampshire. We got 2nd place in Nevada last time


February 6 – Confirmed date of the Iowa caucuses (We could pull off a win in this state, and finish anywhere down to 5th or 6th with how tight this caucus will be..)

February 14 – Expected date of New Hampshire primary (2nd place of better. We are polling 2nd place right now in New Hampshire)

February 18 – Confirmed date of the Nevada caucuses (2nd place or better. We were 2nd in 2008 at 14%)

Best Case Scenario is that we win Iowa (YES!), and finish second or better in New Hampshire/ Nevada.....that way we will be in perfect position heading into South Carolina and Super Tuesday where most of the bigger states will get their vote........it could be a horse race, and Ron Paul could very well land on top...

[1836]

Your predictions have no basis. If you are going to predict something, at least give some kind of facts. Better yet, give a solution or method for getting there.

Blissful statements like "Ron Paul will get 14 to 16 percent AT LEAST" will guarantee that we lose Iowa and get less than that amount in votes. I heard too much of that in 2007 and I am tired of "we are going to win guys!!!111" type statements.

[FreedomProsperityPeace]

I don't like the idea of more candidates in the race. That just means more people competing for voters' attention and makes it harder to get Dr. Paul's message out. It also makes it harder to reveal the truth about these other bad candidates.

IMO, the narrower the field, the easier it is for us to demonstrate the differences between each of them vs. Ron Paul. It also cuts down on the distractions the media can throw out there. We all know the more people listen to what Ron Paul is actually saying (vs. media spin and sound bites) the more they come over to our side.

[1836]

I don't like the idea of more candidates in the race. That just means more people competing for voters' attention and makes it harder to get Dr. Paul's message out. It also makes it harder to reveal the truth about these other bad candidates.

IMO, the narrower the field, the easier it is for us to demonstrate the differences between each of them vs. Ron Paul. It also cuts down on the distractions the media can throw out there. We all know the more people listen to what Ron Paul is actually saying (vs. media spin and sound bites) the more they come over to our side.

Right. The original poster does not seem to understand politics. Fewer candidates is good until you get to two. Three or four or five is an ideal number for someone with a unique platform and relatively broad favorability (Ron Paul) to be able to do very well.

We need to hope that a few of the current crop drop out by the caucuses. I would guess Gingrich, Santorum, and possibly Pawlenty if he does not do well in Ames.

[nbhadja]

The fact we got 10% in 2007 in Iowa is very impressive. I agree that we will get at least 15% in Iowa this time.

Ron Paul has become so much more popular this time around. I am amazed to see the progress, but I am even more impressed to see that the mentality of this movement is still the "desperate cant waste one minute back against the wall" mentality.

In one year, who knows how much more Ron Paul can explode in popularity.

[Kregisen]

2 is the very best...if it was Ron vs. Romney I would bet $1000 right away Ron would win. Suddenly you get half the time in a debate and you can tear apart Romney. Less people is always better.

You will NOT get Ron's message out there when there's 12 candidates. You will when there's 4. Less people the better.

[scrosnoe]

Repeat to yourself -- primaries are decided by Republican voters in Republican primaries.

Get involved and be an ambassador~

[FreedomProsperityPeace]

2 more points:

1) We all know that a longer, more relaxed environment is better for Dr. Paul to explain his positions. A smaller field gives him more opportunities to have that. A large field means more 30 second answers, and more machine gun yes or no answers.

2) What is the media clamoring for? They are practically on their knees, begging guys to jump in: Christie, Perry, Palin, Giuliani, Jeb Bush. There are more than enough establishment people in there now, but for some reason they want some more people to join.

IMO, this can only be to make is easier for them to squelch any Ron Paul momentum, and to roll back any of the positions he has advanced in this campaign. The more "strong national defense" (pro-war on terror) types they have out there, the more they can beat back the non-intervention message. The more of them they have, the easier it is to forget about the Fed.

[mlee45]

Your predictions have no basis. If you are going to predict something, at least give some kind of facts. Better yet, give a solution or method for getting there.

Blissful statements like "Ron Paul will get 14 to 16 percent AT LEAST" will guarantee that we lose Iowa and get less than that amount in votes. I heard too much of that in 2007 and I am tired of "we are going to win guys!!!111" type statements.


My predictions are based off of the election results of the 2008 election, and the poll that was released from the "Iowa Independent." It was just a personal prediction, so I don't see your need for attacking me, and belittling me in later posts. and If you disagree with whatever my prediction was, than why don't you come up with one yourself....haha, instead of just trying to make fun of me. Keep in mind, we are all family here, we all are for the greater good of Ron Paul winning! so there is no need to harass me, or anyone else in this great community.

I agree that the smaller amount of candidates would give more press time for Ron Paul, but I don't necessarily think that it would be better for him. With less candidates, the more the media can have bias against him, and mislead more americans.

Look at what happened in 2007, Sure, there were a lot of candidates at this stage of the cycle, but they weren't as serious as this time around. In my opinion, Romney, McCain, Huckabee, and Paul were the only REALLY serious candidates, and looked what happened.

A lot of candidates will drop before super tuesday, so with Ron doing so well in the early states due to the amount of so many candidates being in the race will make him do better when there are less candidates.

And another thing is that I am not trying to make a "we are going to win guys!!" type of statement, I'm simply saying that we have a lot against us, and a long way to go, but certain things happening in this race can help us! and that YES WE CAN WIN, WE CAN! but we do have a lot of work to do! :D

[libertybrewcity]

Did Ron Paul actually say this?

[tribute_13]

Pawlenty won't make it past Iowa. Count on it.

[Mallory]

tribute, Do you have anything to back that up? I'm not asking it in a hostile way, I just would like to know if there's anything going on against him aside from seeming boring at this point in the race. Lots of talk show pundits think he'll do well there.

[CaptUSA]

Yeah, the more is not the better. Perhaps if you were thinking simply in terms of numbers, but that's not the way things work. It's about exposure and media acceptance. They don't have to "like" you, but they better at least recognize you have a chance. If not, they will not give you air time and potential voters will think you have no chance of actually winning. Most people like to support someone they think can win. A small minority will vote based upon principles - we already have that minority. We can grow that minority, sure, but if you want to actually win this thing, the media had better take you seriously.

If they start pitting this as a race between Huntsman, Perry, and Romney, Paul won't stand a chance. This is why these early straw polls are so important.

[John of Des Moines]

...
February 6 – Confirmed date of the Iowa caucuses (We could pull off a win in this state, and finish anywhere down to 5th or 6th with how tight this caucus will be..)

February 14 – Expected date of New Hampshire primary (2nd place of better. We are polling 2nd place right now in New Hampshire)

February 18 – Confirmed date of the Nevada caucuses (2nd place or better. We were 2nd in 2008 at 14%)




If Paul polls well with Iowa college students don't be too surprised if the power-brokers have Florida move up their date to force all the rest to push forward their dates as well so Iowa colleges are on winter break like last time.

[mlee45]

Would anyone like to take a stab or a prediction of where they think we are in Iowa?