Why we MUST WIN in SC:

[Unknown.User]

..

[YankeesJunkie]

If #2 happens Ron will still be able to garner enough support and there is a good chance that the convention in Tampa turns into a shit show where anything can happen. If Romney wins SC then the nomination will be almost impossible to take from him.

[ross11988]

Both you guys really need to understand the nomination process.

[Crotale]

I disagree, though I would argue that winning Nevada is crucial to our chances. But lets focus on getting as many votes in South Carolina as we can. Pull out all the stops, and we'll perform well. This race will not be over after South Carolina, no matter what happens.

[Karsten]

The good news? WE CAN WIN SC! We are surging there and will continue to do so. The major ad drops by pro-Paul groups are just starting, we are about to get a huge endorsement, and we have a list of local radio and television stations. We can break through the noise and do this!
Tom Davis to the rescue! Hell yeah, bab!

[LeJimster]

While I agree we need a win and soon to bring the type of momentum needed to be the Romney Alternative. I've decided not to get my hopes up even if the polls show Paul in the lead, what I liked about the 2nd place in NH, even though it was a fair distance behind Romney, Ron Paul's speech was impressive and the crowd were enthusiastic and what happened on twitter afterwards with "President Paul" trending WORLDWIDE was immense. Whatever happens in SC, we need to continue that kind of momentum after the vote. Public perception of a big number of supporters chanting President Paul is incredibly influential. It's a type of peer-pressure that makes people want to be apart of the group.

[ross11988]

I disagree, though I would argue that winning Nevada is crucial to our chances. But lets focus on getting as many votes in South Carolina as we can. Pull out all the stops, and we'll perform well. This race will not be over after South Carolina, no matter what happens.

Exactly

[jbuttell]

Despite Ron's strong showing, didn't Romney dominate Nevada in 2008, largely accredited to a large mormon population? Is Ron's momentum really enough to challenge that dynamic?

[RPit]

Despite Ron's strong showing, didn't Romney dominate Nevada in 2008, largely accredited to a large mormon population? Is Ron's momentum really enough to challenge that dynamic?

I would argue, no. But still optimistic that Americans want to save America.

[JJ2]

Nevada is meaningless. The media only cares about SC and FL.

[Mordan]

Nevada is meaningless i agree. I remember very well in 2008. McCain got nothing from it.

I would say path is this : Place second in SC. Place 4th or 3rd in Florida

WIN Virginia!!!!! Campaign wants to prove the Romney vs Ron Paul meme? FIND A WAY to win VA. It is Ron Paul vs Romney. Win Virginia and then goes to Texas and California with that win to prove Ron Paul is viable.

We all agree on the Romney vs RP meme right? Then win the only contest during super tuesday where you actually have it.

[Unknown.User]

..

[gerryb]

Nevada is meaningless i agree. I remember very well in 2008. McCain got nothing from it.

I would say path is this : Place second in SC. Place 4th or 3rd in Florida


McCain got nothing from it because Ron was in second, and they successfully blacked that out... won't work this time.

Placing 2nd in SC would be huge, but the campaigns original strategy is to start picking up delegates in NV in a big way..

[thoughtomator]

all that matters is the number of delegates going to the convention

Paul has the best plan to win them. My money is on President Paul.

[Paul or not at all]

People laughed at me when I was worried about Santorum in IA, but now there is more reason to be worried about him this time, the false prophets of social conservatism (Dobson, Beur, etc.) have instructed their followers to vote for him in the primary.

[Dianne]

South Carolina not possible.. I would move on to Virginia; where it is a two man race... Paul vs Romney... Paul needs to gang rape Romney there !!!!

South Carolina a hopeless cause... very dump peeps there... paid off evangelicals, lazy peeps don't even make their own decisions but ask for preachers to decide for them, I believe in the low 10 of literacy.... prime pickins for the Obama owned news media and Obama funded preachers.. Even worse than North Carolina..

[Unknown.User]

..

[jbuttell]

South Carolina not possible.. I would move on to Virginia; where it is a two man race... Paul vs Romney... Paul needs to gang rape Romney there !!!!

South Carolina a hopeless cause... very dump peeps there... paid off evangelicals, lazy peeps don't even make their own decisions but ask for preachers to decide for them, I believe in the low 10 of literacy.... prime pickins for the Obama owned news media and Obama funded preachers.. Even worse than North Carolina..

Even with the latest poll numbers, you think South Carolina isn't possible? Seemed that way before NH, but it's getting serious now...

[Unknown.User]

..

[Kevin Smyth]

Why did Ron Paul take 4 days off? :confused:

He should be campaigning in South Carolina right now

[bobburn]

He's an active Representative in Congress--he has other duties that he must attend to. He took three days to attend to other issues--he was in South Carolina on Wednesday. He was away on Thursday, Friday, and Saturday. He will be there tomorrow.

[Unknown.User]

..

[OrbitzXT]

I disagree, though I would argue that winning Nevada is crucial to our chances. But lets focus on getting as many votes in South Carolina as we can. Pull out all the stops, and we'll perform well. This race will not be over after South Carolina, no matter what happens.

Isn't Nevada Republicans only? Why is Ron Paul expected to do well there when he can't get the support of Independents and Democrats?

[Kevin Smyth]

Isn't Nevada Republicans only? Why is Ron Paul expected to do well there when he can't get the support of Independents and Democrats?

Is Nevada Republicans only? :eek:

[OrbitzXT]

Is Nevada Republicans only? :eek:

This website says (http://www.kolotv.com/home/headlines/Nevada_Caucus_Information_137222493.html):


To participate you must be a registered Republican by January 20. Pre-registration for the caucus is strongly suggested. Contact your county GOP office or visit their website for details.

[anthony0738]

We got the Bunny Ranch. Nevada is in the bag.

[69360]

It would be good if Ron did win SC, but as long as he doesn't come in 5th or worse the campaign is in good shape. Ignore the media narrative, the campaign will continue to win delegates state by state and be in a good position for super tuesday as the others flal away leading to the ultimate mittens v. Ron race.

[Unknown.User]

..

[69360]

We will certainly see through the media narrative that it is in the bag for Romney, but will the average voter/donater?

If they aren't why are Ron's poll numbers rising to 16-20 in SC and nationally?

[clint4liberty]

We need to work hard in South Carolina so that Dr. Paul does well. We need at least 15% or higher to do well in the Palmetto State. Nevada is
meaningful for the nomination and delegate process, but the dinosaur media will write it off. The goal in Nevada needs to be a second place finish and gathering over 20% of the Caucus vote. It is entirely possible Dr. Paul will receive a higher percentage in Nevada than in New Hampshire. The conservatives in the Republican Party need Newt Gingrich to win in South Carolina. My analysis show it is clear Rick Santorum will not win in South Carolina. Hopefully, John Huntsman will siphon a moderate/liberal Republicans off of Mitt Romney's tally.

[69360]

Hopefully, John Huntsman will siphon a moderate/liberal Republicans off of Mitt Romney's tally.

In SC or NV? Huntsman has like 5% in SC polling and will probably under perform, he's not hurting Romney there. I don't think he will be in the race by NV.

[clint4liberty]

If Ron Paul is polling at least 16% in South Carolina, this means the campaign is in good shape to surge at the end. We need to realize it is the economy, jobs,
unemployment rate, executive experience, and foreign policy is what matters this primary election. All these social conservative organizations rallying behind
Rick Santorum is being done to correct the Mike Huckabee mistake of the 2008 campaign.

[seawolf]

Unfortunately, it is now an established pattern that Ron returns to his home in Clute, Texas for a three or four day rest after a week of straight day-to-day Campaigning. (Iowa and now New Hampshire). One can only assume that he needs to recharge his batteries and prepare for the next set of primaries.

Having him gone from South Carolina for the last 4 plus days has definitely hurt the Campaign, and its' momentum.

Winning South Carolina was always a long shot, but if we could finish second and clear Huntsman and Perry out of the equation that would be huge.

I agree with the earlier replies, it is all about accumulating delegates.....we just have to keep marching forward and cannot count on the corporate media backing our Hero.

Believe me, the 2007 RP Supporters know this fact only too well.

[hueylong]

The campaign knows what they are doing. They know much better than we do what Dr. Paul needs. All the 2nd guessing isn't helpful.

[Unknown.User]

..

[Kevin Smyth]

The campaign knows what they are doing. They know much better than we do what Dr. Paul needs. All the 2nd guessing isn't helpful.

How would they know about our 2nd guessing? :rolleyes:

[Unknown.User]

..

[alucard13mmfmj]

we need at least a strong second or above in south carolina. we need it to buffer florida. we all know, in the near future, that florida will be the state where we will have a hard time.

[69360]

Unfortunately, it is now an established pattern that Ron returns to his home in Clute, Texas for a three or four day rest after a week of straight day-to-day Campaigning. (Iowa and now New Hampshire). One can only assume that he needs to recharge his batteries and prepare for the next set of primaries.

Why unfortunate? It's working for him. He does well then takes the time to prepare for the next state to come out strong at the end where the other candidates are frazzled and making stupid mistakes because of it.

[roderik]

I don't think there's even the slightest chance to win SC.
Second place will be quite the accomplishment already imho.

[Liberty Shark]

No. We do not need to win South Carolina. A top 3 is acceptable, but at this point a 2nd would be great. Winning 1st obviously is and should be the objective, but it's not a must. A very close 3rd would be good enough, but due to the apparent boost in these last few SC polls, I think 2nd is within reach.

[alucard13mmfmj]

i concure, if ron paul does well on the debate on monday and we work very hard. we can get 2nd for sure.

[Student Of Paulism]

I agree about the 4 day off thing. Yea, i get that everyone needs a break and he is still officially a congressman, but it's now or never here. This is probably the most crucial elections ever and every second and every vote counts. If it was 20 years ago, it wouldn't be so bad, but with the shape the country is in, and impending doom of the police-state, the media machine, etc, hiatuses like this aren't helping. When i seen the polls with how he surged, i was like 'wow, great stuff' and got really excited, only to then hear he was gone for 4 days :-/ Every bit of momentum helps, and while all them other idiots are over there campaigning, Ron is nowhere to be found. He rode into SC on a nice wave, and it just woulda been nice to keep that going as much as possible. Obviously, some hearts and minds got changed seeing him spike like that, and that is when you want to be as close to the people as possible.

With less than 2 weeks or so of campaign time between primaries, every moment is precious, especially this year.

The greatest enemy of the day when it comes down to it, isnt Romney, Gingrich, Santorum, Obama, The GOP, or the MSM. It's TIME.

[hueylong]

The campaign knows what they are doing. He took time off between Iowa and NH -- his performance in the NH debate was by far his best, and we did significantly better than in Iowa.

The second guessing is a waste of time.

[Txrose4ever]

Romney did very poorly at today's Texas Straw Poll. Only 6.6% and Ron Paul at 27.7%. Gingrich was second @ 23%. Texas, I believe will go to Paul.

[Txrose4ever]

People laughed at me when I was worried about Santorum in IA, but now there is more reason to be worried about him this time, the false prophets of social conservatism (Dobson, Beur, etc.) have instructed their followers to vote for him in the primary.

Except Santorum is not going to end up going all the way, I don't believe. He has even less appeal to most voters than Romney.

[Kevin Smyth]

Except Santorum is not going to end up going all the way, I don't believe. He has even less appeal to most voters than Romney.

As of right now all of the candidates have less appeal than Romney according to the results.

[Txrose4ever]

If they aren't why are Ron's poll numbers rising to 16-20 in SC and nationally?

More people are starting to notice and really see how media has tried to manipulate the outcome of this process. It has been so blatant. This, in itself, is sending people in droves to check Paul out. This is what I think is happening. Lots of people are not relying just what they see on MSM. Word of mouth is starting to have its effect as well.

[hueylong]

The Tom Davis endorsement tomorrow will likely be a watershed moment for SC.

[JJ2]

Good grief. Most of you are in complete denial mode. If Romney wins SC, it would be like your favorite NBA team getting blown out by 30 points for the first three quarters. Sure, there is a slim mathematical possibility of coming back to win the game, but it's not going to happen.

Just don't say some of us didn't warn you.

[gerryb]

Good grief. Most of you are in complete denial mode. If Romney wins SC, it would be like your favorite NBA team getting blown out by 30 points for the first three quarters. Sure, there is a slim mathematical possibility of coming back to win the game, but it's not going to happen.

Just don't say some of us didn't warn you.

After FL, 5% of the delegates will have been decided...

The campaigns strategy has yet to falter.. and the bump in SC has taken them by surprise.. They are capitalizing on it by putting more resources there. If RP comes in the top 3 it could potentially KO someone prior to original expectations.

We haven't seen a primary schedule/set of rules like this for the last century..

[coffeewithgames]

Both you guys really need to understand the nomination process.

Maybe they understand history. Name me one candidate that didn't win either Iowa, New Hampshire, or South Carolina?

[coffeewithgames]

Romney did very poorly at today's Texas Straw Poll. Only 6.6% and Ron Paul at 27.7%. Gingrich was second @ 23%. Texas, I believe will go to Paul.

What about Perry, and how many people participated?

[TheeJoeGlass]

Maybe the news will involve Florida?

[gerryb]

Maybe they understand history. Name me one candidate that didn't win either Iowa, New Hampshire, or South Carolina?

When was the last time we had proportional delegates?

[rachmiel]

Good grief. Most of you are in complete denial mode. If Romney wins SC, it would be like your favorite NBA team getting blown out by 30 points for the first three quarters. Sure, there is a slim mathematical possibility of coming back to win the game, but it's not going to happen.

Just don't say some of us didn't warn you.

This isn't a basketball game. Primaries are built on momentum, and he's got it.

[JJ2]

This isn't a basketball game. Primaries are built on momentum, and he's got it.

And Romney winning the first 3 primaries is the ultimate momentum. Media will declare the race over. More momentum. He'll win FL. First 4 states. Even more momentum. Etc. Etc.

The only way our momentum can have any effect and stop Romney is if we win SC. That's it.

[JJ2]

When was the last time we had proportional delegates?

Democrats do, and the same thing is true on their side. Winning early states = critical.

[cindy25]

South Carolina not possible.. I would move on to Virginia; where it is a two man race... Paul vs Romney... Paul needs to gang rape Romney there !!!!

South Carolina a hopeless cause... very dump peeps there... paid off evangelicals, lazy peeps don't even make their own decisions but ask for preachers to decide for them, I believe in the low 10 of literacy.... prime pickins for the Obama owned news media and Obama funded preachers.. Even worse than North Carolina..

SC is not hopeless. because a win is possible with 20%
Romney and Ron each get 20%, the 4 stooges each get 13-17 (total of 60)
Ron already 2nd, Newt is 4th, and keeps bringing the Romney number down

[cindy25]

Democrats do, and the same thing is true on their side. Winning early states = critical.

some states have always had proportional delegates.

[gerryb]

Democrats do, and the same thing is true on their side. Winning early states = critical.

Last cycle was the closest they've had -- And they had a protracted battle just as we will.

[Dsylexic]

Maybe they understand history. Name me one candidate that didn't win either Iowa, New Hampshire, or South Carolina?

um,Linconln won with nomination -and he carried just ONE state.he got the delegates though. Paul hasnt even played in his home turf -the caucus states that matter like minnesota,nv,maine etc

[Dsylexic]

Good grief. Most of you are in complete denial mode. If Romney wins SC, it would be like your favorite NBA team getting blown out by 30 points for the first three quarters. Sure, there is a slim mathematical possibility of coming back to win the game, but it's not going to happen.

Just don't say some of us didn't warn you.

3 states out of 50 is FIRST THREE quarters? your math is fuzzy.more like first 3 minutes of the game

[well_met_sir]

The other candidates aren't a threat. Santorum, Gingrich, and Perry are all going for the religious vote. Romney, Huntsman, and Gingrich are all going for the moderate vote. What people are forgetting is that culture matters. Santorum is a Northerner, Gingrich is from the Deep South, and Perry is from the Country. That's why Santorum came out on top with the religious vote in IA and NH, and why he can't beat Gingrich in the South.

Santorum will lose his momentum, and it will appear that momentum is shifting to Gingrich. However the next two states are Nevada and Maine. In NV the religious vote will go to a Mormon and in ME it will probably shift back to Santorum, meaning that Gingrich will lose his SC/FL momentum. As the primaries move from one region to the next Gingrich and Santorum will keep having their momentum vanish as they leave their home turf. An occasional 2nd or 3rd isn't enough to sustain a campaign.

Huntsman is like Romney but for a slightly younger crowd. He's not as popular and he is going to lose what little NH momentum he had in SC and FL. I would expect a slight revitalization of his campaign in NV (Mormon) and ME (New England) but Romney is always going to do better in every state that Huntsman can do well in. Plus the fact that he seems to dislike Nevada won't help.

So in the end it is a two-man race and perhaps at some point (February 7th when three states hold their primary) the media will declare that Romney has won. Is that such a bad thing? It would lead to people voting for the winner, but it would also reduce turnout. Reduced turnout is great for Paul.

[hueylong]

After Florida, 5% of the delegates will be allocated, with a full 95% to go. "Momentum" is irrelevant. The narrative of the MSM is irrelevant. There is no need to pee our pants over Romney. We have to consolidate our role as the anti-Romney, and then burn him to the ground.

Again -- the campaign is making great strategic and tactical decisions. All the second guessing is not helpful.

[JJ2]

Last cycle was the closest they've had -- And they had a protracted battle just as we will.

Yes, but both Clinton and Obama won early states. I'm saying that in order to make it a battle, we have to win one of the first three states.

[JJ2]

3 states out of 50 is FIRST THREE quarters? your math is fuzzy.more like first 3 minutes of the game

Not in primaries. Winning early states is essential.

[The Free Hornet]

Not in primaries. Winning early states is essential.

In a MSM dominated political culture, you are correct. Their power is fading and we must capitalize on that and overcome the BS. All the people that voted for Ron Paul and all the people that realize voting for Newt/Santorum/Huntsman is a mistake, are still out there. You think the last 25 state to have primaries are just going to punk out?!

What kind of game would football be if the first 2 minutes mattered more than the last 2 minutes? It might be great for bookies and analysts with opinions of who should win. For true competitors, the end game matters.

[Kevin Smyth]

After Florida, 5% of the delegates will be allocated, with a full 95% to go. "Momentum" is irrelevant. The narrative of the MSM is irrelevant. There is no need to pee our pants over Romney. We have to consolidate our role as the anti-Romney, and then burn him to the ground.

Again -- the campaign is making great strategic and tactical decisions. All the second guessing is not helpful.

The media is never irrelevant because most Americans are influenced by it. By the way, you don't run this forum so your ego trip of lecturing to us is getting a little old.

[Kevin Smyth]

In a MSM dominated political culture, you are correct. Their power is fading and we must capitalize on that and overcome the BS.

Unproven claim. Most Americans are still very much influenced by the media especially the over 45 age demographic.

[Kevin Smyth]

The campaign knows what they are doing. He took time off between Iowa and NH -- his performance in the NH debate was by far his best, and we did significantly better than in Iowa.

The second guessing is a waste of time.

Your attempting to speak for the campaign is a waste of time, lose the ego trip buddy.

[BigByrd47119]

Unproven claim. Most Americans are still very much influenced by the media especially the over 45 age demographic.

I don't exactly agree with it being unproven. It's common knowledge that the internet is robbing media networks on television of their viewers. 20 years ago there was no alternative to the MSM. However today we have the internet which is a huge alternative (although MSM networks maintain a presence even there). Saying that the internet has not changed the MSM's domination of political culture is a little naive IMO.

[Kevin Smyth]

I don't exactly agree with it being unproven. It's common knowledge that the internet is robbing media networks on television of their viewers. 20 years ago there was no alternative to the MSM. However today we have the internet which is a huge alternative (although MSM networks maintain a presence even there). Saying that the internet has not changed the MSM's domination of political culture is a little naive IMO.

Your view is based on a fallacy that internet is replacing mainstream media, that simply isn't true, most people use the internet to reinforce the political loyalties they already formed from watching television and they continue to watch television. Someone watches Sean Hannity on Fox News and then joins the Sean Hannity forum and posts there. Where are you getting the idea that the existence of the internet is creating new political views? I don't see that AT ALL, I've seen hundreds of blogs that copy Fox News and Rush Limbaugh almost word for word because the people who make them are still very much plugged in to mainstream media. In addition, Fox fans don't even think Fox is mainstream media, they think that term applies only to liberal networks. My mother's friends watch Glenn Beck on his internet webshow but they originally found him on Fox News, he's not a stranger to them, he is known to them because he was on TV. This meme that the internet is some separate universe that negates the influence of television just isn't true.

When you see these polls that ask people, "Do you trust the mainstream media?" The reason you are seeing low figures such as only 25% of those polled say they trust the mainstream media is because Republicans do not consider Fox News to be mainstream media, a Fox News fan thinks "mainstream media" is a negative term and thus applies only to liberal networks like ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, and MSNBC. Therefore, the poll results actually have no meaning and don't prove what you think they prove. The poll results don't prove that most Americans are now getting their news and political views from the internet.

[Unknown.User]

..

[unknown]

Well, a top tie fiinish is good as well.

Even though raising awareness is good, how do we accomplish this?

PFH doesnt goto SC so you either have to donate or get yourself to S.C.

[milo10]

Your view is based on a fallacy that internet is replacing mainstream media, that simply isn't true, most people use the internet to reinforce the political loyalties they already formed from watching television and they continue to watch television. Someone watches Sean Hannity on Fox News and then joins the Sean Hannity forum and posts there. Where are you getting the idea that the existence of the internet is creating new political views? I don't see that AT ALL, I've seen hundreds of blogs that copy Fox News and Rush Limbaugh almost word for word because the people who make them are still very much plugged in to mainstream media. In addition, Fox fans don't even think Fox is mainstream media, they think that term applies only to liberal networks. My mother's friends watch Glenn Beck on his internet webshow but they originally found him on Fox News, he's not a stranger to them, he is known to them because he was on TV. This meme that the internet is some separate universe that negates the influence of television just isn't true.

When you see these polls that ask people, "Do you trust the mainstream media?" The reason you are seeing low figures such as only 25% of those polled say they trust the mainstream media is because Republicans do not consider Fox News to be mainstream media, a Fox News fan thinks "mainstream media" is a negative term and thus applies only to liberal networks like ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, and MSNBC. Therefore, the poll results actually have no meaning and don't prove what you think they prove. The poll results don't prove that most Americans are now getting their news and political views from the internet.

I'm sorry, but I don't agree with this at all. The internet has had a massive effect on political views over the past decade. The Huffington Post, The Young Turks, RT, Al Jazeera, and Alex Jones are all more influential than many TV pundits and personalities. The MSM is losing credibility constantly from multiple sources giving alternative viewpoints, and also very clear examples of their manipulation, hypocrisy, and vested interests.

If you mean that it hasn't reached the tipping point where the internet defines the narrative of political thought and people start dropping TV news the way they dropped newspapers, then we agree. I tend to think that tipping point will be reached in the next 2 years. I don't know if it will be in time for Ron Paul or not, but this is a battle that we are winning every day.

[Peace&Freedom]

I'm sorry, but I don't agree with this at all. The internet has had a massive effect on political views over the past decade. The Huffington Post, The Young Turks, RT, Al Jazeera, and Alex Jones are all more influential than many TV pundits and personalities. The MSM is losing credibility constantly from multiple sources giving alternative viewpoints, and also very clear examples of their manipulation, hypocrisy, and vested interests.

If you mean that it hasn't reached the tipping point where the internet defines the narrative of political thought and people start dropping TV news the way they dropped newspapers, then we agree. I tend to think that tipping point will be reached in the next 2 years. I don't know if it will be in time for Ron Paul or not, but this is a battle that we are winning every day.

+1. And the durability and momentum of Ron Paul's entire candidacy is proof that the MSM cannot derail it, thus is not dominating anymore. The original plan of the media was to completely blackout Paul by this point (just like last time, remember?). Instead, he is a top tier candidate, and doing better than the campaign's own projections at this point. The delegates are not frontloaded as in past primary cycles---that's what made winning the early contests so critical. That's not the case now, so let's withhold our perceptions as to how the new ballgame will play out, until most of it unfolds.