PDA

View Full Version : Reason: Iowa caucus results met or exceeded Paul campaign's expectations




emazur
01-05-2012, 01:22 AM
http://reason.com/blog/2012/01/05/ron-paul-moving-out-of-iowa


But I've gotten some on-the-record comment and a much larger store of background or not-for-attribution stuff from wandering around the speeches, caucuses, and parties of the Ron Paul world this week.

The most important thing for Paul fans to know is: coming in third with over 26,000 votes fully matched if not exceeded the campaign's hopes and expectations. Even if you are bummed that he didn't win, the campaign is not. Some in the Paul community are even pretty sure that not coming in first will be better for Paul for the long haul than coming in first would have been. (For general reasons of "less of a target for opponents and media.")

During the brief holiday period of Paul's frontrunner-hood last month, that attention didn't feel good to the campaign in many ways. But there is no objective sign that he was particularly damaged by any of that yesterday. Paul's 21.4 percent came in pretty much exactly as he'd been polling for the ten days prior. Paul didn't fail to win yesterday because his percentage shrank; he didn't win because his opponents' percentages grew.

pauliticalfan
01-05-2012, 01:30 AM
We got the same number of delegates as first place and are avoiding the negative spotlight that will be shining heavily on Rick and Mitt. Strategically, that's good.

ronpaulitician
01-05-2012, 01:35 AM
Two sides to every coin.

Winning would've brought more credibility, more money, more momentum, and, yes, more scrutiny. I personally think winning would've been the better option, but third with 26,000+ votes, almost three times as much as we got in 2008, sure feels like somewhat of a victory (especially now that it's been 24 hours since the initial "disappointment").

emazur
01-05-2012, 01:47 AM
Two sides to every coin.

Winning would've brought more credibility, more money, more momentum, and, yes, more scrutiny. I personally think winning would've been the better option, but third with 26,000+ votes, almost three times as much as we got in 2008, sure feels like somewhat of a victory (especially now that it's been 24 hours since the initial "disappointment").

I agree. And even though Paul lost, he still got a great deal of media attention the day after the vote.