What happens if Huck wins Iowa and Ron Paul wins New Hampshire?

[csen]

The more I think about it the more I think this is a plausible scenario. Huckabee (and Ron Paul, though to a lesser extent) continue to gain in Iowa. Rudy, Thompson, and McCain are fading, while Romney is holding what he has but not really picking up momentum other than through the losses of the old first tier. It seems entirely conceivable that Iowa finishes like this:

1) Huckabee
2) Romney
3) Paul

and New Hampshire follows like this:

1) Paul
2) Romney
3) Huckabee (?)

Were that to happen, the entire primary becomes a free for all. At that point I could see Romney or Rudy taking votes in some of the big market states (say NY, Florida, California) while Huckabee takes much of the South and Ron Paul wins the West. It would be a classic battle between your prototypical neocon -- pro family, pro war, pro entitlements -- and your prototypical Old Right conservative. It could really come down to who's got the most troops on the ground, fundraising, and delegates. And the battleground states might be ones that straddle the Old Right/neocon line a lot closer than we thought.

[noxagol]

Don't forget south carolina.

[10thAmendmentMan]

Usually, the guy that wins the nomination gets two out of Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina. This time around, I think we may have three different people grabbing those three different states. If that happens, it all comes down to Super Tuesday.

[LibertyEagle]

What are we doing in South Carolina? I don't hear much about that? Any advertising? Any visits planned?

[csen]

Usually, the guy that wins the nomination gets two out of Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina. This time around, I think we may have three different people grabbing those three different states. If that happens, it all comes down to Super Tuesday.

I actually think it drags on past Super Tuesday -- the difference being in the past the candidates were all more or less the same. This time Romney/Rudy/Thompson/McCain are all more or less the same, Huckabee is a socially conservative, pro-war big spender, and Ron Paul is a constitutionalist. There are clear ideological differences that play differently in different states.

[goRPaul]

I believe it works to our advantage if Huckabee wins Iowa. It would show that the voters aren't happy with frontrunners Guiliani and Romney and that this election can't be bought. We should be rooting for Huckabee in Iowa.

[BLS]

I believe it works to our advantage if Huckabee wins Iowa. It would show that the voters aren't happy with frontrunners Guiliani and Romney and that this election can't be bought. We should be rooting for Huckabee in Iowa.


As opposed to rooting for RP to win Iowa??

I am pretty confident about New Hampshire....not so much about Iowa.

[csen]

As opposed to rooting for RP to win Iowa??

I am pretty confident about New Hampshire....not so much about Iowa.

Our advantage in Iowa for the moment is expectations are so low. Everyone expects us to finish 6th. If we can pull 3rd, which I think is doable, it would be seen as a huge win, and would make RP and Huck the big stories heading into NH.

[Badger Paul]

Certainly if Huckabee wins Iowa and RP finishes in the top three and goes on to win new Hampshire it would shatter all the conventional wisdoma about the race and open the door for both candidates to get serious consideration.

Basically if that scenario plays out then the Romney, Thompson and McCain camapaigns would be finished leaving Guliani trying to creat a firewall in Florida and Super Tuesday. Huckabee would go all out to win South Carolina but we would have a chnace there as well with a NH win and an endorsement from Sanford.

Here's Huckabee's problem in a nutshell. Even if you win Iowa, then what? RP's camapaign has the advantage of having supporters and bases of support in all 50 states. Huckabee does not have this and would be hurt when Super Tuesday came around.

[FluffyUnbound]

I think the best scenario for Ron would be if Fred wakes up from his coma and somehow wins South Carolina.

That sequence of winners would produce complete chaos. A chaotic primary season presents more opportunities than a couple of Romney wins followed by Rudy smacking Romney around everywhere else.

[Dave]

It seems entirely conceivable that Iowa finishes like this:

1) Huckabee
2) Romney
3) Paul

and New Hampshire follows like this:

1) Paul
2) Romney
3) Huckabee (?)


If this happens, I don't think things will be settled until the national convention in St. Paul. We'll run out of gas before the finish line if we don't have delegates!

[Original_Intent]

Huckabee would only get what the media gives him for Iowa. He does not and will not have the funds for a national campaign.

He has moved to Iowa in order to win it. He is betting everything on New Hampshire, I am not sure if he thinks he will get enough press from that to win over other states, or if he plans to use that to then trade his endorsement for a VP spot.

[Ethek]

Huckabee would only get what the media gives him for Iowa. He does not and will not have the funds for a national campaign.

He has moved to Iowa in order to win it. He is betting everything on New Hampshire, I am not sure if he thinks he will get enough press from that to win over other states, or if he plans to use that to then trade his endorsement for a VP spot.

Huckabee is a sellout. He has already been smoozing Rudy for the VP spot.

[shadowhooch]

Our advantage in Iowa for the moment is expectations are so low. Everyone expects us to finish 6th. If we can pull 3rd, which I think is doable, it would be seen as a huge win, and would make RP and Huck the big stories heading into NH.

Eh, anything less than 1st in any state is a disappointment in my mind. There are no rewards for 2nd or 3rd. Delegates are only awarded to 1st place finishers.

So, in my mind, the primaries aren't something we need to "do well" in. They are things we MUST WIN if we want RP to be President. And he MUST WIN most of the states.

The Primaries are a time to put up or shut up. It's going to be tough. Which is why we must make sure everyone knows about Ron Paul so they can vote for him.

I don't mean to be negative or attacking. But a good showing means nothing without victory.;)

[Ninja Homer]

There was a recent poll in Iowa which says that 50% of registered Republicans want the troops home from Iraq in the next 6 months. Ron Paul just started a new ad campaign in Iowa. There's no reason to think that Ron Paul can't take Iowa.

Huckabee's campaign is a house of cards built up by the media. He doesn't have the funds or the support for a national campaign.

[speciallyblend]

If this happens, I don't think things will be settled until the national convention in St. Paul. We'll run out of gas before the finish line if we don't have delegates!

I'd say it this way Ron Paul and all the Ron Paul Supporters WIN WIN WIN,no matter what happens,its the GOP that will LOSE LOSE LOSE,if they dont nominate Ron Paul. Ron Paul's message will go on.

There is no way this grassroots movement is going to dissapear.We are going to WIN,if we inform all your friends and family and so on,then we can WIN,and if we dont WIN,WE STILL WIN. IT'S THE MESSAGE,IT'S THE PEOPLE,WE THE PEOPLE

A RON PAUL REPUBLICAN :D

[FSP-Rebel]

Call me a hater but I can't stand seeing Huck on any of the tv shows nor doing well in any of the polls especially when he's rolling with chump change. I'm just so sick of this conservative impostor...:mad:

[manny]

There was a recent poll in Iowa which says that 50% of registered Republicans want the troops home from Iraq in the next 6 months. Ron Paul just started a new ad campaign in Iowa. There's no reason to think that Ron Paul can't take Iowa.

Huckabee's campaign is a house of cards built up by the media. He doesn't have the funds or the support for a national campaign.


My thoughts exactly. The stats are clear - RP has the most potential for growth - to put it mildly.

Within America as a whole he has the most popular foriegn policy - again that's putting it mildly - 70% of the population want his policy and emphatically not the policy of any other Republican candidate. The situation with registered Republicans is more complicated, and many need winning over, but there are many polls showing a near majority supporting his position - and indeed this will rise when the financial implications are better explained, and the neo-cons will split their vote.

There is no reason why RP shouldn't win every state. And I'm serious; his competition is that weak. Rudy is a liberal big government authoritarian itching for another war, McCain supports illegal immigration and more wars, Mitt Romney changes his mind on everything and would let lawyers decide on whether to go to war, Huckabee is on video begging for tax increases and is a pure media creation, Thompson has totally flopped. The difference: These guys have been presetned consistently as viable choices, while RP has often been marginalised by the media. Yet he smashes fund-raising records, draws huge crowds, wins straw polls and is up to 8% in some of the crooked polls, and we all know they're not the truth and under-represent RP.

All that needs to be done - aside from delegates - is push, push, push. The man sells himself perfectly - he's honest and has popular ideas. The establishment are terrified. Every day RP's campaugn advances and I see this continuing.

PS - run into a Romney supporter, show them this:

http://romneyfacts.com/redblue.php

Run into a Huckabee supporter:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_pLOC4krZI4


If we can get his ideas/literature/videos/speeches/articles out there then RP deserves to win every state by a landslide. Just a matter of showing how he is the most republican, patrioitc, intelligent and honest man running. By miles.

[F3d]

....

[ronpaulyourmom]

I think the best scenario for Ron would be if Fred wakes up from his coma and somehow wins South Carolina.

That sequence of winners would produce complete chaos. A chaotic primary season presents more opportunities than a couple of Romney wins followed by Rudy smacking Romney around everywhere else.

I really couldn't disagree with this more. There's only so much room in the media for cinderalla stories, two is the max Thompson needs to fade out.

[jgmaynard]

No WAY Huck comes in 3rd in NH - He's not going anywhere in NH. McCain is far more likely to wind up #3 in the Granite State, IMO. For one thing, Huck is a preacher, and NH is the most atheistic state in the nation. Heck, I'm willing to bet the active Pagans in this state outnumber Huck supporters. :)

JM

[xd9fan]

all this just shows the GOP is at a crossroads. What kind of party does it want to be.
With no vision domestically (besides the "patriot" act :mad:), limited Govt is out the window...."for your safety".......this party is just a foreign conflict party.
The splits we see are a good thing. This party needs to get back to basics if it wants to survive.

[DRV45N05]

I don't know if Ron can win Iowa simply because he hasn't been there a lot. Romney and Huckabee have been there tons, and it shows in the polling numbers. However, the fact he's beating Tancredo, who has been there all the time, and is basically tied with McCain in every poll except the ARG poll (which is a bogus poll), is very good news.

I think 3rd should be the goal to shoot for right now. And it's very well accomplishable. However, if Huckster and Romney start going at each other (Thompson and Huckster have done it already), that could open things up, because Iowans HATE hegative politics.

[Primbs]

Romney already has had dry run in Iowa by winning the straw poll. Romney has the money and resources to bring in buses into Iowa to get people to the caucus.

Don't count out Romney.

However, Dean had buses in 2004 but they were empty in the end.

[Goldwater Conservative]

all this just shows the GOP is at a crossroads. What kind of party does it want to be.
With no vision domestically (besides the "patriot" act :mad:), limited Govt is out the window...."for your safety".......this party is just a foreign conflict party.
The splits we see are a good thing. This party needs to get back to basics if it wants to survive.

What's odd is that 58% of Iowa Republicans want troops home from Iraq within six months.

[stevedasbach]

If Romney doesn't win Iowa and New Hampshire, he's toast. His entire strategy is built around victories in those states.

He may be able to survive a strong second place finish in one of the states, but not both.

He really doesn't have much organization outside of the first few states, and if his money isn't enough to buy victory there, it isn't likely to buy victory in the rest of the country.

Thompson and McCain are in a similar situation, with South Carolina included. If they can't win any of those states, it's hard to see how they keep going.

[Mr. Coolidge]

There was a recent poll in Iowa which says that 50% of registered Republicans want the troops home from Iraq in the next 6 months. Ron Paul just started a new ad campaign in Iowa.
Definitely, if that poll reflects reality then I don't see how Ron couldn't win Iowa. It looks like all we need up there is some serious name recognition and ads.

And seriously, what has kept Romney at the top of these polls? Is it advertising money alone?

[Johnnybags]

The economy is going to be in recession and markets in a shambles by then, tis the economy stupid. Noone is going to want anyone not sounding the principles of sound money and living within your means as a nation.

[jgmaynard]

What's kept Romney up in NH is his name recognition - an issue we are working hard on for Paul this election! The more people and the more ads and the more money we have, all the better!

JM

[Nash]

Here's Huckabee's problem in a nutshell. Even if you win Iowa, then what? RP's camapaign has the advantage of having supporters and bases of support in all 50 states. Huckabee does not have this and would be hurt when Super Tuesday came around.


Don't underestimate the power of winning an early primary. One win early can put you on the map nationally.

This is true for Huckabee and Paul. That is why it is so important to win early states like New Hampshire.

[austin356]

If this happens, I don't think things will be settled until the national convention in St. Paul. We'll run out of gas before the finish line if we don't have delegates!



Some states are not filled yet?

[jpa]

If Iowa goes Huckabee, Romney, Thompson, Paul and NH goes Paul, Romney, McCain.. then that makes NV, MI, and SC really, really important.

If Paul can win 1 of those 3, he will have 2 of the first 6 and a lot of momentum going into super tuesday. Huckabee is only a threat in SC, and I don't think any other candidate can get 2 of 6 early states. (Maybe Rudy in FL & NV or MI)

[Primbs]

There will be a huge chance for a deadlocked national convention where nobody has enough delegates.

[me3]

Some states are not filled yet?
Uhm, yeah. Haven't you been reading these forums? There must have been 30 threads since Monday.

Probably too many people obsessing about Glenn Beck and polls.

[BillyDkid]

You know what makes me ill. Huckabee would be absolutely nowhere if the media hadn't decided to prop him up as a serious candidate. It matters not if Huckabee can't raise $20 as long as the media continues to carry his water. And, of course, they doing it specifically to counter Dr. Paul's surge of genuine support. It make me nauseous.

[koob]

If Iowa goes Huckabee, Romney, Thompson, Paul and NH goes Paul, Romney, McCain.. then that makes NV, MI, and SC really, really important.

If Paul can win 1 of those 3, he will have 2 of the first 6 and a lot of momentum going into super tuesday. Huckabee is only a threat in SC, and I don't think any other candidate can get 2 of 6 early states. (Maybe Rudy in FL & NV or MI)


IF michigan even has primary. If Michigan does have a primary this is good news for Ron Paul. Michigan has an open primary and the only democrat on the ballot in Michigan is going to be Hillary--I think. This means that all the democrats who would normally vote in the primary who don't support Hillary may very will vote for Ron Paul. I already know a bigtime liberal who is voting for Ron Paul, just because of the reason I cited.

[dante]

we don't win a majority of the delegates going into the election. We can't afford to arrive with only a plurality and leave it up for grabs there. As all the delegates of the other candidates will eventually gang up on us.

[Dan D.]

I think Huckabee is going to win Iowa; he's the biggest supporter of agricultural subsidies of any of the candidates, going so far as to give it its own issues page on his website.

On the plus side that means that we don't have to worry too much about a Huckabee win in Iowa cascading into a Huckabee win in the other early primary states. I have every confidence in the good doctor to win New Hampshire, and he ought to make a very strong showing in Nevada as well, if the straw polls are any indicator.

The problem is South Carolina. Unless Giuliani starts imploding faster (and you'd think the things with Kerik and/or Robertson would have done it, but I guess not), I think Ron's going to have a pretty poor showing there, even if he does manage better than 4th.

[Jobarra]

IF michigan even has primary. If Michigan does have a primary this is good news for Ron Paul. Michigan has an open primary and the only democrat on the ballot in Michigan is going to be Hillary--I think. This means that all the democrats who would normally vote in the primary who don't support Hillary may very will vote for Ron Paul. I already know a bigtime liberal who is voting for Ron Paul, just because of the reason I cited.
Agreed. People also need to be thinking of the early Democrat primaries. If Hillary wins half the early states, I'm pretty sure that Dr. Paul will see additional surges in open primaries from Democrats who want someone other than Hillary. Stay in until the end as Ron Paul's chances just get better and better over the long haul, especially after winning states and people start paying attention to what he's going for.

I'm actually hoping the majority of the neocon candidates stay in for the first few states. With the votes spread out among them, Dr. Paul will have a serious advantage running against all of them.

[Joey Wahoo]

The more I think about it the more I think this is a plausible scenario. Huckabee (and Ron Paul, though to a lesser extent) continue to gain in Iowa. Rudy, Thompson, and McCain are fading, while Romney is holding what he has but not really picking up momentum other than through the losses of the old first tier. It seems entirely conceivable that Iowa finishes like this:

1) Huckabee
2) Romney
3) Paul

and New Hampshire follows like this:

1) Paul
2) Romney
3) Huckabee (?)

Were that to happen, the entire primary becomes a free for all. At that point I could see Romney or Rudy taking votes in some of the big market states (say NY, Florida, California) while Huckabee takes much of the South and Ron Paul wins the West. It would be a classic battle between your prototypical neocon -- pro family, pro war, pro entitlements -- and your prototypical Old Right conservative. It could really come down to who's got the most troops on the ground, fundraising, and delegates. And the battleground states might be ones that straddle the Old Right/neocon line a lot closer than we thought.

I've been thinking about that scenario too. Romney would be crushed, since he's depending on getting two wins. McCain is gone is he doesn't win NH.

Huck would be a one hit wonder, accomplishing little more than securing his spot as #2 on a Rudy ticket.

The big winner would be Ron Paul, who unlike Huck has a dedicated national following.

[jgmaynard]

NH is likely to shake down like Ron and Mitt first and second (it's up to us to decide which order), then McCain 3rd. There's still some love left over for McCain here from 2000, but he's being perceived as out of touch due to his support of the war. Romney has the name recognition, Ron is building up name recognition here quickly, though. Even my non-political friends were talking about the money bomb. My ultra-liberal sister sent me a birthday card (my BD is tomorrow :) ) and she ended her note with: "Could it be Ron Paul?" :D

JM

[Adamsa]

I think Paul will be 4th or 5th in Iowa unless the turnout is exceptionally low.

[Aratus]

i miss the way things could be hashed out without people getting too rude.
this thread looked at what different outcomes would have done to things in
2oo8. if anything, this year is not "politics as usual" in that this is the first
time a sitting president has been running for office at the same time that the
same said sitting president has to explain things inside an impeachment trial.
here we are, more than a decade later. events are on the march. the trial looms.

[angelatc]

i miss the way things could be hashed out without people getting too rude.
this thread looked at what different outcomes would have done to things in
2oo8. if anything, this year is not "politics as usual" in that this is the first
time a sitting president has been running for office at the same time that the
same said sitting president has to explain things inside an impeachment trial.
here we are, more than a decade later. events are on the march. the trial looms.

Back then the one thing we all agreed on was foreign policy. The only hero we worshipped was Ron Paul.

[Anti Globalist]

Nothing will happen because the winner of the Iowa caucus doesn't dictate who will eventually become the nominee. Huckabee, Santorum, and Cruz all won Iowa but didn't go on to become the president.