PDA

View Full Version : It's fifth, but a strong fifth




goRPaul
01-04-2008, 05:26 AM
I was hoping all night long that we'd pull into fourth, but we still had a pretty strong showing. We handily beat Rudy, and were not significantly behind Thompson or McCain. There's plenty of time left, and plenty more work to do.

What we need to focus on is that we had 29% of independent support on the republican side, where independents accounted for 13% of GOP caucus-goers. This even beat McCain, who had 21%. We can use this fact to our advantage, maybe Lou Dobbs will mention it today.

johngr
01-04-2008, 05:40 AM
He did as well as he did in the straw polls. If that trend continues...

WilliamC
01-04-2008, 05:46 AM
Just no momentum from a 5th place finish though, it's just holding in place.

NPR just now talking that Rudy actually spent lots of money in Iowa even though he didnt' campaign there.

Anyone know how much money each candidate spent in Iowa compared to how many votes they got?

IF Ron Paul got a higher number of votes per dollar spent than the top 3 or 4 then that would be a good bit of news.

olehounddog
01-04-2008, 05:51 AM
Mitt spent 7 mil

Mithridates
01-04-2008, 06:16 AM
Just no momentum from a 5th place finish though, it's just holding in place.

I'd say there's a little bit. Here's why:

-Just last week I saw an article on both Ron Paul and Hunter, the so-called 'bottom tier' in the race. After Iowa it won't be possible to compare the two again.
-Beating Giuliani and the effect that it'll have on the Fox debates (even if they still decide not to let Ron Paul into the debate it'll be that much more obvious that they're being biased, and there'll probably be an even bigger gathering because of it).
-It puts an end to the 'spammers on the internet' theory once and for all.

MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2
01-04-2008, 06:39 AM
He did as well as he did in the straw polls. If that trend continues...

He was also beaten by Brownback in the Iowa Straw Poll. If that doesn't say something about Iowa, I don't know what does.

We also showed that we have deeper support than we've been given credit for.

Bill Clinton got 3% in Iowa.

We were within distance of 3rd, even though the media has ignored Paul like crazy, and slandered him when they couldn't ignore him. I mean, they were missing a huge chunk of their Pie on CNN just so they could not show his name.

We could have done better, but we're doing just fine.

colin1
01-04-2008, 07:43 AM
I'm not real happy with the result, because every morning show I watched today said nothing, absolutely nothing regarding Ron Paul. All I kept seeing was the Huckabee, Romney, Thompson and McCain tied for third stuff. Everyone keeps going on about how all the other candidates have no money, etc. Well think about this: McCain supposedly has no money and no grassroots support, yet he placed third in Iowa and may win NH according to the polls I'm seeing. It seems that you don't need a ton of money or grassroots support to actually win, just lots of free coverage and fluff pieces from our friends in the MSM. If Ron had only tied for third they couldn't ignore him like they are now. It does matter, and this is what is pissing me off, the polls that everyone convinced me where grossly understating Ron Paul's support turned out to be right on the money. What happened? I'm not trying to be a downer, I'm still in this 100% and am trying to make it to NH to help out on the 8th.

hayeksrevenge
01-04-2008, 07:48 AM
I know we RP supporters were hoping for a better finish for Paul, but the truth is that 10% is not bad for Dr. Paul in Iowa. The Republican voters there are very religious compared to other states and they bound themselves to the Baptist minister. New Hampshire is not Iowa.

I never expected a huge break through in Iowa... I was looking at NH and South Carolina.

Last thing, the media is not writing off Dr. Paul. I have seen no calls for him to drop out. They are treating his showing in a positive light, though they are otherwise ignoring him.

Chin up. Nothing really changed. On to New Hampshire.

rockwell
01-04-2008, 08:04 AM
Little or negative coverage of Ron Paul yields a vote tally 5 times higher than the "official" polling of Paul showed.

This is the time to redouble our efforts, to repeatedly ask, how could you guys be off by a factor of 5? How could Bill Clinton have won the Presidency when he only got a third of the votes that Ron Paul got?

Spin this back on them, make them answer the questions or go on the defensive.