PDA

View Full Version : Pat Buchanan predicts Ron Paul victory in Iowa




Agorism
12-28-2011, 04:27 AM
Pat Buchanan predicts Ron Paul victory in Iowa


http://dailycaller.com/2011/12/28/pat-buchanan-predicts-ron-paul-victory-in-iowa



Conservative commentator and former Republican presidential candidate Pat Buchanan says Ron Paul will likely win the Jan. 3 Iowa caucuses, and that a poor showing by Newt Gingrich would be a death knell for his struggling campaign.

“I’ll say this: if Newt comes in third, his surge is done,” he told The Daily Caller.

Buchanan, who surged to a second place showing in the 1996 Iowa caucuses before winning the New Hampshire primary, said that the Texas congressman is a “slight favorite” over Romney to win the caucuses.

If Paul wins and Romney finishes in second place, Buchanan said the former Massachusetts governor would still be well on his way to capturing the nomination.

“If Ron Paul wins Iowa, Romney wins Iowa,” Buchanan said, because “Romney should still win New Hampshire.”

“And Newt,” he said, “who was the candidate, as of a month ago, who could probably have taken three out of the first four contests, the strongest candidate as of a month ago against Romney, will really be set back dramatically if he comes in third.”

Buchanan said Gingrich is probably suffering from the deluge of television ads attacking him in Iowa, and that without a victory either there or in New Hampshire, the former speaker is extremely unlikely to win the crucial Jan. 21 South Carolina primary





“My guess is that the pounding on Newt is probably going to work with a lot of those folks who came out for him because they thought this is the authentic conservative,” Buchanan said. “And they found out about the $1.6 million from Freddie Mac, and they decided maybe not.”

“You’ll notice that the folks who win South Carolina have won either New Hampshire or Iowa,” he noted. “And if Newt loses them both, I think that’ll be hard for him to maintain, even though he’s got quite a lead in South Carolina.”

Despite his own come-from-behind surge in the week leading up to ’96 Iowa caucuses, Buchanan said he isn’t bullish on the chances of second-tier candidates like former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum or Texas Gov. Rick Perry.

Santorum, he observed, is still stuck behind several other candidates and doesn’t have much time to rise in the polls. And while he said Perry has lots of money and a “great message” for Iowa voters, he’s skeptical that the Texas governor can translate that into actual votes.

“He may be able to do it, but it’s hard for me to see how he wins,” Buchanan said of Perry. “If he does, it would be enormously dramatic, and that would really kill Newt. Then there’s a rival to Newt who people will say can be the non-Romney conservative.”

“If Perry rises to beat Newt, I think that’s it for Newt,” he said.

A Public Policy Polling survey released Tuesday showed Paul leading the Republican field in Iowa with 24 percent support, followed by Romney at 20 percent, Gingrich at 13 percent, Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann at 11 percent, and Santorum and Perry at 10 percent.

RickyJ
12-28-2011, 04:40 AM
“If Ron Paul wins Iowa, Romney wins Iowa,” Buchanan said, because “Romney should still win New Hampshire.”

Yeah, he should with all the voter fraud in NH shouldn't he Pat?

I use to like Pat a long time ago and actually voted for him in a primary, but I see him more now as false opposition.

AggieforPaul
12-28-2011, 04:44 AM
Honestly, as sick as we are of hearing it, there's truth to a Paul win in Iowa being better for Romney than a Gingrich/Perry win. We need to somehow improve our mediocre numbers in SC/FL (this may happen automatically with Iowa momentum), or just beat Romney in New Hampshire. This is a reminder there's a lot of work to do after Iowa.

Steppenwolf6
12-28-2011, 04:49 AM
I would have expected a lot more from him.
Even some plain stumping for Paul as a real possibility as a president.
Well...fuck him.

Who needs endorsements?
If some comes,fine but
we don't depend on them.

We win this by ourselves,that's the way.

RickyJ
12-28-2011, 04:51 AM
I would have expected a lot more from him.
Even some plain stumping for Paul as a real possibility as a president.
Well...fuck him.

Who needs endorsements?
If some comes,fine but
we don't depend on them.

We win this by ourselves,that's the way.

Man do you have to cuss every other post?

This is a family forum and is where people are directed to go to learn more about Ron Paul.

Agorism
12-28-2011, 04:52 AM
I want Newt and Perry to finish lower than 3rd.

Having Santorum or Bachmann in 3rd would be a huge distraction as well, but at least they don't have any money like Newt or Perry. Also Newt is favored to win S.C. so I'd really like to see him cut down. Perry is high on intrade to win S.C. as well and he has money so getting rid of him would be great.

AggieforPaul
12-28-2011, 04:55 AM
Well if Romney wins NH, Perry or Newt winning SC would be better than Romney winning them. It'd be better for there to be a split until we get past Ron's weak states like SC and FL.

milo10
12-28-2011, 05:00 AM
I think every Ron Paul supporter is disappointed with Pat. I used to speak well of him in the past.

But, take it for what it's worth. He is not a Ron Paul supporter, he's universally recognized as being very astute and knowledgeable about elections and he just wrote off Newt's campaign, as there seems no way that Newt could do better than 3rd in Iowa. There is even a possibility that he will be 4th place.

speciallyblend
12-28-2011, 05:06 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VwT1kp0C3Ss<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VwT1kp0C3Ss">
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VwT1kp0C3Ss (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VwT1kp0C3Ss)

RickyJ
12-28-2011, 05:07 AM
I think every Ron Paul supporter is disappointed with Pat. I used to speak well of him in the past.

But, take it for what it's worth. He is not a Ron Paul supporter, he's universally recognized as being very astute and knowledgeable about elections and he just wrote off Newt's campaign, as there seems no way that Newt could do better than 3rd in Iowa. There is even a possibility that he will be 4th place.

He basically said in this article that Romney was going to get the nomination!

This is before a single vote has actually been cast!

Either he knows something we don't or he is smoking something.

Agorism
12-28-2011, 05:07 AM
Well if Romney wins NH, Perry or Newt winning SC would be better than Romney winning them. It'd be better for there to be a split until we get past Ron's weak states like SC and FL.

If Newt or Perry wins SC, then it's game over for Ron Paul. The race will become a two main race without Ron.

However, if Romney wins SC with Paul in second, then the race continues to be about Paul as the challenger.

SilentBull
12-28-2011, 07:14 AM
I definitely don't want Perry to be third. We need Newt to be third.

Agorism
12-28-2011, 07:16 AM
I definitely don't want Perry to be third. We need Newt to be third.

intrade has Newt and Perry high in SC, and Newt could defeat Paul there.

Why not push up Bachmann or Santorum (the clown show candidates)

bobbyw24
12-28-2011, 07:19 AM
He basically said in this article that Romney was going to get the nomination!

This is before a single vote has actually been cast!

Either he knows something we don't or he is smoking something.

Time will tell--he is probably right too

Anyone here see Ron Paul winning in SC or Fla??

bobbyw24
12-28-2011, 07:19 AM
If Newt or Perry wins SC, then it's game over for Ron Paul. The race will become a two main race without Ron.

However, if Romney wins SC with Paul in second, then the race continues to be about Paul as the challenger.

Glad some people here are honest with themselves

RickyJ
12-28-2011, 07:19 AM
intrade has Newt and Perry high in SC, and Newt could defeat Paul there.

Why not push up Bachmann or Santorum (the clown show candidates)

I am really not for pushing up anyone other than Paul. I don't think we have the ability to push up Bachmann or Santorum unless we went directly to the people that would not vote for Paul under any circumstances and campaigned for one of those two.

bobbyw24
12-28-2011, 07:23 AM
like Pat did in the 1996 primaries?

Hmmm

We shall see

fatjohn
12-28-2011, 07:26 AM
If Newt or Perry wins SC, then it's game over for Ron Paul. The race will become a two main race without Ron.

However, if Romney wins SC with Paul in second, then the race continues to be about Paul as the challenger.

You are assuming that Paul does not win NH after an Iowa bump. And even if he didn't a second place in NH and SC would be enough to open up a three way race in which he can still take Nevada and propell him to the nomination.

Steppenwolf6
12-28-2011, 07:38 AM
You are assuming that Paul does not win NH after an Iowa bump. And even if he didn't a second place in NH and SC would be enough to open up a three way race in which he can still take Nevada and propell him to the nomination.

Absolutely right.
We do not depend on the first few states at all,we have a serious organization and a serious message in place here.

Agorism
12-28-2011, 07:39 AM
Intrade has Romney at over 80% chance to win NH. I'm realistic. We need to win Iowa, do well in NH, and then over perform in SC.


I am really not for pushing up anyone other than Paul. I don't think we have the ability to push up Bachmann or Santorum unless we went directly to the people that would not vote for Paul under any circumstances and campaigned for one of those two.

I'm not advocating them. I just said which order i favor in Iowa.

SilentBull
12-28-2011, 08:20 AM
intrade has Newt and Perry high in SC, and Newt could defeat Paul there.

Why not push up Bachmann or Santorum (the clown show candidates)

I'm just afraid the media will pump Bachmann or Perry if they get third. But if Newt gets third, they won't be able to say anyone else is surging.

Agorism
12-28-2011, 08:21 AM
Maybe Drudge should link to this instead..