PDA

View Full Version : If Rand doesn't win Iowa or NH, is his campaign over?




YouKnowNothing
05-30-2015, 10:49 PM
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/243275-gop-2016-must-win-states-for-the-partys-top-contenders


For Paul, the situation in the early states is simple: Go hard or go home.
Paul has a legitimate shot at winning both Iowa and New Hampshire. But if he does not emerge victorious in at least one of those contests, his path to the nomination would become very narrow.

The latest Quinnipiac poll showed the Kentucky senator tied with Rubio for second in Iowa, and he appeared in a dead heat with Walker for the top spot in New Hampshire in a recent Bloomberg poll.

But two victories for Paul would likely provoke that the GOP establishment to scramble the jets to stop him. They would have a decent chance of doing so, too.
South Carolina, with its mixture of social conservatives and military families, is very treacherous territory for the libertarian-minded Paul. The March calendar also has high hurdles for him, featuring several states in the Deep South and the industrial Midwest.

TaftFan
05-30-2015, 10:54 PM
Yes, that is why he is still running for Senate.

Sola_Fide
05-30-2015, 10:56 PM
Yes.

jj-
05-30-2015, 10:57 PM
No

William Tell
05-30-2015, 10:57 PM
I would prefer he stays in as long as he can regardless, but that's just me.

adelina
05-30-2015, 11:02 PM
Not necessarily. If he places second in BOTH Iowa and NH and no single candidate wins both, then he will still be in a good position.

JJ2
05-30-2015, 11:11 PM
He has to win both states in order to have any realistic chance at the nomination.

TaftFan
05-30-2015, 11:16 PM
He has to win both states in order to have any realistic chance at the nomination.
Any math people want to run the odds on him winning both? I have to say the odds are very, very low.

I think he can win one and still have a realistic chance. I think winning both would make him the favorite.

jurgs01
05-30-2015, 11:19 PM
He has to win both states in order to have any realistic chance at the nomination.

This. He could maybe continue on with a win in one and a strong second in the other. Tom Davis will help a lot in South Carolina. He will need an early win or two to get the bigger money behind him.

The establishment will do everything they can to prevent a win, and if he does pull one out it will be a consolidated attack-fest on Rand. Honestly, it will be difficult. He needs to shine in the debates on a national stage, but I'm sure the moderators will have walking orders to minimize him as much as possible.

William Tell
05-30-2015, 11:19 PM
Any math people want to run the odds on him winning both? I have to say the odds are very, very low.

Agreed, but he does poll pretty darn well in both of those particular states. I think he could pull it off, will he? Not much point in conjecturing, but optimism is helpful to the movement.

William Tell
05-30-2015, 11:22 PM
This. He could maybe continue on with a win in one and a strong second in the other. Tom Davis will help a lot in South Carolina. He will need an early win or two to get the bigger money behind him.
Rand could conceivably get more significant endorsements in South Carolina than any other state. I don't know how much it will affect things, but potentially 3 sitting Congressmen, Mulvaney, Sanford, and Duncan would be a pretty big deal to any other candidate.

The media may be underestimating his SC potential.

JJ2
05-30-2015, 11:28 PM
Any math people want to run the odds on him winning both? I have to say the odds are very, very low.

I think he can win one and still have a realistic chance. I think winning both would make him the favorite.

If he wins Iowa, I think that would help him win NH as well.

Winning both would make most candidates the favorite, but the establishment will try to stop Rand.

TaftFan
05-30-2015, 11:28 PM
Rand could conceivably get more significant endorsements in South Carolina than any other state. I don't know how much it will affect things, but potentially 3 sitting Congressmen, Mulvaney, Sanford, and Duncan would be a pretty big deal to any other candidate.

The media may be underestimating his SC potential.
Rand's secret weapon is Lindsey Graham, ironically. He could split the vote with whoever the leading establishment candidate is.

jurgs01
05-30-2015, 11:32 PM
Rand's secret weapon is Lindsey Graham, ironically. He could split the vote with whoever the leading establishment candidate is.

His chances in South Carolina drastically improve with a win in IA, NH, or both.

EBounding
05-30-2015, 11:39 PM
Yes. IMO, He has to win Iowa just for the momentum and get at least a solid 2nd in NH (< 5 points behind).

I really hope he doesn't string people along like the Ron campaign did after South Carolina.

jj-
05-30-2015, 11:48 PM
I really hope he doesn't string people along like the Ron campaign did after South Carolina.

just after South Carolina? No, the whole time. Ron never ever had a chance, and I don't have a problem with it.

jj-
05-30-2015, 11:48 PM
I really hope he doesn't string people along like the Ron campaign did after South Carolina.

just after South Carolina? No, the whole time. Ron never ever had a chance, and I don't have a problem with it.

eleganz
05-31-2015, 12:01 AM
I really hope he doesn't string people along like the Ron campaign did after South Carolina.

Dude, the campaign had no intention to stop, they had to keep going after South Carolina because there were a lot of other states fighting to help him win. They also had to raise money to help those activists who put their lives on hold to win all of those state conventions and delegates. All of that stuff isn't cheap, you need to maintain your legal counsel, your strategists, your state presence, and basic campaign essentials and tools.

Ron does have a mill left over from the last go around sitting in the campaign account, I don't know if its still there, hope it goes to Rand.

r3volution 3.0
05-31-2015, 12:14 AM
1. Iowa
2. New Hampshire
3. South Carolina
4. Nevada
5. Super Tuesday

By Super Tuesday at the latest, it will be down to two: whoever the establishment rallies around (call it Bush) and the conservative alternative (Con-Alt).

Last time, it went through Super Tuesday when Santorum finally got the Con-Alt spot, since he and Gingrich split the earlier states.

If that happens again (early states split between Con-Alts), Rand can be viable into Super Tuesday w/ a single win.

And I think his best shot, if he's only going to win one of the four, is either Iowa or New Hampshire (largely because of momentum).

So, yes - I think he most likely need to win IA or NH to have a chance.

...at becoming the Con-Alt.

If/when that happens, then it's on like Donkey Kong with Bush III.

...but that fight doesn't worry me nearly as much as getting Rand into the Con-Alt spot to begin with. That's the real challenge.

timosman
05-31-2015, 01:00 AM
Maybe he should start attacking Hillary ? What the heck is he waiting for ? This would establish him as an alpha dog among pu**y footed GOP candidates. The money problem is easy to solve. I am sure one of his staffers could go on a speaking tour for 500k/hour or open a foundation where foreign leaders could donate to the future president. Works really well for Hillary.

cindy25
05-31-2015, 01:11 AM
except for Bill Clinton, no one has won a nomination of either party without winning one of the two

milgram
05-31-2015, 01:17 AM
Where's the 3 way polling between Rand, Jeb and Hilldawg?

timosman
05-31-2015, 01:21 AM
except for Bill Clinton, no one has won a nomination of either party without winning one of the two

How relevant is this information given what we are supposedly doing here ? We must win in Iowa. If we can not win, we should start packing.

nikcers
05-31-2015, 01:29 AM
Tin foil hat time,

The party isn't splintered as much as they want you to think. There are two major player types of candidates and they are fielding 6 candidates minimum each. The neocon players are Walker, Rubio, Bush, Fiorina, Santorum, Graham.

The Coch wing is pushing Carson, Cruz, Huckabee, Christie, Trump, Kaich.

Both of the candidates types have a defacto alliance against Paul because they represent different republican kingmakers and the enemy of my enemy is an ally. They are all significantly designed to make the republican party big enough to win in the general election.

The coch group have already announced their plan ahead of time, they plan to pick a winner sometime during the primary season so they can prop them up enough to beat the neocons. We need to make sure that our coalition is the biggest, and that's why we will need to reach out to people who wouldn't normally vote because that market is fair game.

I think at one point, our guy tried to con the koch group by getting the leader of the koch party Bitch McConnell reelected. This is why he was getting fair coverage on Fox news for so long. At one point though Rand realized that they were playing him- he also dropped this patriot act bomb on their faces. Maybe was the plan all along to catch them off guard.

timosman
05-31-2015, 01:39 AM
I find it funny to think if Rand did start running a real campaign he could not take them all. Why does not he talk to Koch brothers ? These guys love money more than anything else and I am sure they would be delighted to talk to somebody who gives them a continuity option without getting us into WWIIII.

JohnGalt23g
05-31-2015, 05:55 AM
No, but it becomes a helluva lot more difficult.

Try to remember, Bill Clinton won neither IA nor NH in 1992.

Peace&Freedom
05-31-2015, 06:26 AM
No, but it becomes a helluva lot more difficult.

Try to remember, Bill Clinton won neither IA nor NH in 1992.

But when you're the elite-selected favorite you're in a different position than when you're the outsider. You can lose many early contests, as Clinton did in '92, Dole in '96 and Bush in '00, but the MSM will still talk you up as viable. Your campaign could be dead momentum wise, and out of money going into the first contests, as McCain was in '08 or Santorum in '12, but the MSM will claim you are 'surging' from out of nowhere, pick your carcass up and carry you over to victory.

Non-establishment contenders are positively not allowed to fail upwards. When/if Rand does not establish early he can win a caucus or primary, the media will bury him, period. Their marching orders are not merely to blackout coverage at crunch time, but to completely prevent Rand from picking up momentum anywhere. Just as with Ron, their job is to put out his fire as much as they can. I'm even beginning to think that the reason there are 18+ GOP candidates, is to keep Rand from breaking out of the pack---some insiders may have analyzed the race and concluded Rand could more easily succeed in an under 10 candidate field.

JohnGalt23g
05-31-2015, 06:43 AM
But when you're the elite-selected favorite you're in a different position than when you're the outsider. You can lose many early contests, as Clinton did in '92, Dole in '96 and Bush in '00, but the MSM will still talk you up as viable. Your campaign could be dead momentum wise, and out of money going into the first contests, as McCain was in '08 or Santorum in '12, but the MSM will claim you are 'surging' from out of nowhere, pick your carcass up and carry you over to victory.

Non-establishment contenders are positively not allowed to fail upwards. When/if Rand does not establish early he can win a caucus or primary, the media will bury him, period. Their marching orders are not merely to blackout coverage at crunch time, but to completely prevent Rand from picking up momentum anywhere. Just as with Ron, their job is to put out his fire as much as they can. I'm even beginning to think that the reason there are 18+ GOP candidates, is to keep Rand from breaking out of the pack---some insiders may have analyzed the race and concluded Rand could more easily succeed in an under 10 candidate field.

You should probably get your history straight.

Dole won IA in 1996. Bush won IA in 2000. And Clinton was a bumpkin from AR, hardly an "elite-selected favorite". That title likely belonged to a man who never entered the contest: Mario Cuomo.

Oh, and blaming the "establishment", before the first votes are cast? Just another excuse for losing...

JohnGalt23g
05-31-2015, 06:43 AM
dp

rich34
05-31-2015, 06:44 AM
If I recall correctly, I believe Bill had some billionaires that saved him, the Walton family...

anaconda
05-31-2015, 06:44 AM
Not necessarily. If he places second in BOTH Iowa and NH and no single candidate wins both, then he will still be in a good position.

Yes.

Peace&Freedom
05-31-2015, 07:56 AM
You should probably get your history straight.

Dole won IA in 1996. Bush won IA in 2000. And Clinton was a bumpkin from AR, hardly an "elite-selected favorite". That title likely belonged to a man who never entered the contest: Mario Cuomo.

Oh, and blaming the "establishment", before the first votes are cast? Just another excuse for losing...

I didn't say Bush or Dole lost Iowa, a contest which is felt to not really matter depending on who you talk to. Buchanan won four states before Super Tuesday in '96 including NH, but was never treated like a serious candidate by the MSM. McCain won NH in '00 and other early contests before SC, yet despite his better momentum saw donations accelerate for GW Bush, not for him.

The outsiders have to fight uphill, and are not treated the same as the anointed, that's the point. AR is not an elite preferred STATE, but their favorite Bill had been in the batter's box since '88. As we've seen in two past cycles, the establishment is to blame, rigs the game, and matters before, during and after the votes are cast.

Badger Paul
05-31-2015, 08:00 AM
It would be pretty much dead, which is why if I'm Paul, I declare that I will compete in the Iowa Straw Poll. Not only will this please the party stalwarts who want to keep the straw poll, it will force Scott Walker into a corner and force him to decide whether to compete or not and if he does compete and Paul does as well as his father did four years ago, Walker could be dealt a harsh blow.

Brett85
05-31-2015, 08:12 AM
Any math people want to run the odds on him winning both? I have to say the odds are very, very low.

Why would you say that? I would say the odds are very high considering how many candidates are in the field and how divided the vote will be. The problem for Rand will come when it eventually gets down to a 1 on 1 race against someone like Rubio or Walker. If I had to give a realistic assessment of what will happen, I think that Rand will win Iowa and New Hampshire but still end up losing the nomination.

dude58677
05-31-2015, 08:17 AM
Why would you say that? I would say the odds are very high considering how many candidates are in the field and how divided the vote will be. The problem for Rand will come when it eventually gets down to a 1 on 1 race against someone like Rubio or Walker. If I had to give a realistic assessment of what will happen, I think that Rand will win Iowa and New Hampshire but still end up losing the nomination.

He id going to win for the same reason he won the Ketucky Senate. He'll get to the debates and argue that the others are intellectually dishonest. He has no preference on who he faces.

alucard13mm
05-31-2015, 09:16 AM
"the established backed candidate" can afford not to win idaho or new hamshire.. An outside like Rand needs to win or at least be top 2 in order to keep momentum imo...

jaymur
05-31-2015, 09:24 AM
and where their support goes

I would prefer he stays in as long as he can regardless, but that's just me.

69360
05-31-2015, 09:54 AM
Most likely yes it's realistically over. Maybe strong seconds in both he could make it until super tuesday, but after that he would drop out if there wasn't a good showing.

IMO, he's not going to win the nomination this time around, but will be well placed for next time.

69360
05-31-2015, 09:55 AM
double post

Ronin Truth
05-31-2015, 09:58 AM
Not really in much of an enviable position. :(

Ronin Truth
05-31-2015, 10:01 AM
Not really in very much of an enviable position. :(

nikcers
05-31-2015, 10:39 AM
I think we have a better chance this year then in last time around for his dad. I think we can only hope he wins this argument today. This is going to be the argument he should win regardless of what happens because the American people are on his side. A lot of it is going to come down to the new media though. Perception is everything and we need to show Rand and everyone that is watching that we stand with him.

Krugminator2
05-31-2015, 01:02 PM
Any math people want to run the odds on him winning both? I have to say the odds are very, very low.

I think he can win one and still have a realistic chance. I think winning both would make him the favorite.

He's 10-1 against to win the nomination. Iowa and NH are good states for him so his likelihood of winning one them is much higher.

If you say he is 4-1 against in both Iowa and NH right now, that would mean he has about a 4% chance of winning both states. If he wins Iowa that makes winning NH more likely and vice versa so 4-1 is probably a good approximation for NH.

Bastiat's The Law
05-31-2015, 01:28 PM
Nobody has won the Presidency without finishing in the top 3 in Iowa. Rand needs to win Iowa.

JohnGalt23g
05-31-2015, 01:46 PM
Any math people want to run the odds on him winning both? I have to say the odds are very, very low.

I think he can win one and still have a realistic chance. I think winning both would make him the favorite.

Winning both would make him the odds-on favorite, regardless of the size of the remaining field...

P3ter_Griffin
05-31-2015, 01:46 PM
Only four primaries this year before super Tuesday. And only a month between Iowa and super Tuesday this year. So I'd guess there will be less coalescence around any 'anti-establishment' candidate then last time, and there will probably be more candidates still contending into super Tuesday. I think he needs to do well in Iowa, NH, and NV in order to have a shot at pulling some states during super Tuesday, but it is a completely psychological thing and not a delegate thing.

Bastiat's The Law
05-31-2015, 01:56 PM
Ron lost because he didn't win Iowa. Ron needed to win to establish credibility.

timosman
05-31-2015, 01:59 PM
He needs to get out of the gate fast starting from Iowa. The key is to have an organization to make sure all votes are counted properly. How much effort would be needed to put 2-3 people in a each polling place and give them access from their mobile phones to post the results to a web site where we could tally votes independently ? I do not want to hear any whining about the establishment screwing us again.

Sola_Fide
05-31-2015, 02:00 PM
Maybe he should start attacking Hillary ? What the heck is he waiting for ? This would establish him as an alpha dog among pu**y footed GOP candidates. The money problem is easy to solve. I am sure one of his staffers could go on a speaking tour for 500k/hour or open a foundation where foreign leaders could donate to the future president. Works really well for Hillary.

Where have you been? Rand has been attacking Hillary for years now.

enhanced_deficit
05-31-2015, 02:02 PM
Nobody has won the Presidency without finishing in the top 3 in Iowa. Rand needs to win Iowa.

He can with right strategy and focus. He is not in a bad position.

Barrex
05-31-2015, 02:02 PM
He's 10-1 against to win the nomination. Iowa and NH are good states for him so his likelihood of winning one them is much higher.

If you say he is 4-1 against in both Iowa and NH right now, that would mean he has about a 4% chance of winning both states. If he wins Iowa that makes winning NH more likely and vice versa so 4-1 is probably a good approximation for NH.
I am not Einstein but how did you get 4%?

timosman
05-31-2015, 02:12 PM
Where have you been? Rand has been attacking Hillary for years now.

Was he ? I thought he was dropping subtle hints.

timosman
05-31-2015, 02:12 PM
dp

P3ter_Griffin
05-31-2015, 02:12 PM
Ron lost because he didn't win Iowa. Ron needed to win to establish credibility.

Well, he did technically win, but I know what you're saying. I think Rand has changed positions enough where he doesn't have the same hurdles as Ron. I don't think Rand's positions can be twisted so much, and I don't think they differ from mainstream so far, that he will lack the 'real chance' that Ron didn't end up having (I completely thought Ron was going to win, and was heartbroken when he didn't, but lets be honest). i.e. I can see republicans voting for him without 'waking up'.

Warlord
05-31-2015, 02:43 PM
I think winning NH is a must, not so much iowa

Sweman
05-31-2015, 02:53 PM
I am not Einstein but how did you get 4%?

4-1 equals a 20% chance.

0.2 x 0.2 = 0.04

teaparty
05-31-2015, 02:56 PM
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/243275-gop-2016-must-win-states-for-the-partys-top-contenders

yes its over for him

JohnGalt23g
05-31-2015, 03:07 PM
He's 10-1 against to win the nomination. Iowa and NH are good states for him so his likelihood of winning one them is much higher.

If you say he is 4-1 against in both Iowa and NH right now, that would mean he has about a 4% chance of winning both states. If he wins Iowa that makes winning NH more likely and vice versa so 4-1 is probably a good approximation for NH.

Ladbroke's has him at 8-1, behind Bush, Rubio and Walker...

http://sports.ladbrokes.com/en-gb/Politics/US-Presidential-ElectionPolitics/US-Presidential-Election-t110000608

JohnGalt23g
05-31-2015, 03:07 PM
dp.

What's with all the dp's for me today...?