Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 90 of 152

Thread: Deace's Iowa odds for Rand

  1. #61
    It's just ridiculous if people are going to say that you don't "support Rand" if you ever disagree with his campaign strategy. I support Rand, which is why I speak out when he does something that I think is harmful to his chances to win. I remember a lot of criticism of Ron Paul's campaign strategy in 2012 by a lot of people. I certainly don't think those people were fake Ron Paul supporters. I think they just wanted him to win.
    Last edited by Brett85; 01-26-2015 at 12:19 PM.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #62
    Quote Originally Posted by twomp View Post
    A lot of the liberty activists? You lie. If what you were saying had any ounce of truth then Ron Paul should have won the So- cons vote in 2008 and 2012 but i guess "a lot" of the so-cons didn't agree with your assessment. Way to make $#@! up like you usually do.
    I'll address and respond to your comments if you want to engage in a respectful and civil conversation. Otherwise, I see responding to your comments to just be a complete waste of time and energy.

  4. #63
    Quote Originally Posted by Traditional Conservative View Post
    How do you figure? Romney ran as a hardcore social conservative both times. Pro life, supported a federal marriage amendment, opposed drug legalization, etc.
    Simple. Back when we were kids, there were millions and millions of people who enjoyed watching Robert Young play Dr. Marcus Welby on television. But there probably weren't more than two or three dozen who were stupid enough to see him dining in the Brown Derby and ask him to look at their sciatica.

    Quote Originally Posted by Traditional Conservative View Post
    I'll address and respond to your comments if you want to engage in a respectful and civil conversation. Otherwise, I see responding to your comments to just be a complete waste of time and energy.
    If by 'engage in a respectful and civil conversation' you mean 'stop refuting my garbage and stop making good points', you're right. If he doesn't, you are wasting your time and energy.

    Guess what? You're wasting your time and energy.
    Last edited by acptulsa; 01-26-2015 at 12:15 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    We believe our lying eyes...

  5. #64
    Account Restricted. Admin to review account standing


    Posts
    1,489
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Quote Originally Posted by twomp View Post
    Oh please, there you go stretching it again. Santorum supported Obamacare which was passed in what 2010 by his actions in 2004? SPIN, SPIN, SPIN. Mitt Romney was pro-choice before he was pro-life. That shows how stupid you and the So-Cons are. You guys fell for a lie and now you go defending that lie. The only difference between Romney and Obama was the letter behind their names. Geniuses lol.
    I know Mitt Romney was pro-choice before he was pro-life, apparently Santorum was as well:
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1291634.html

    And Santorum might not have supported ObamaCare, or nationalized healthcare and had spoken out in the 90s about things like that I believe, but his "team playing" attitude got us ObamaCare. His lack of judgement, his going along to get along. Rick Santorum did do more in the '12 election to attack Mitt Romney and try to win the nomination than Ron Paul 2012 did, so for that, Rick Santorum does deserve some credit.

    But when running, Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum were the same on those positions. Which I believe was TC's point? The only difference is that Mitt Romney passed mandatory healthcare at a state level, while President Obama did at a national level, and that could/should have been used to attack President Obama. But, because Mitt Romney won the nomination, that card was out of the bag basically. I agree with that. Rick Santorum said it basically. Something like, "Mitt Romney is the worst Republican in the country to run against President Obama on healthcare."

    But no, not multiple marriages. Not pro-choice during the campaign. Not even pro-ObamaCare. Those were before. But, it shows how stupid the average GOP voter is though, as records didn't matter to them (including the records of Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich).

    Quote Originally Posted by invisible View Post
    And here he is throwing firebombs again, right on cue. You did a real nice setup over the last year and a half, your arguments on why someone involved with Ron and Rand is questionable were all good, and valid. You've done a good job in the last few months with a bit more variety in your posts, and even straying into other topics at times. But now that it's 2015, you certainly seemed to have stepped it up quite a bit. In so many words (in other words, this is the gist of what you're saying over the course of many posts scattered about, not a direct and exact quote, so I'm not going to play the game of arguing or "prove that I said this or you're a liar" type of crap - you know what you've said repeatedly, and so does everyone else here - this will be my only response to you in this thread, no matter what sort of name calling attacks or accusations you respond with), you're already telling everyone:
    "Rand has at least one questionable person tied to him"
    "Rand has someone with a scandal tied to him"
    "Don't donate to Rand, he's not getting one single dime from me"
    "Don't support Rand"
    "He isn't trying to win"
    "He can't win"

    Now, where have we heard this sort of stuff before? Doesn't all this stuff sound awfully familiar? How much will this poster's message intensify over the next year?
    How is stating Rand and his team might have written off Iowa, a firebomb? Politics is local, and Rand might just be concentrating on New Hampshire for his first win, but hoping for a top three finish in Iowa. I do know how much Ron Paul 2012 has spent on legal/law firms since the FEC investigation broke though, so maybe they were able to pay enough to get the entire thing white washed?

    So, maybe Iowa will be in place, but maybe not necessarily for first outright. Rand is trying to win, but I think he is trying to win with the wrong positions and wrong (or, no) talking points. I'm not the only one that sees these walks backs, clarifications, and position changes as problems Rand is creating for himself.

    Quote Originally Posted by acptulsa View Post
    Not to mention finding every opportunity to point when Rand misses an event and to scream that Rand doesn't care about the kind of voter the event is designed to appeal to, and to point when Rand goes to an event and scream that he's offending bigger voting blocs by going and/or he's making himself look non-top-tier by associating with the rabble in the race. Fortunately for him, we libertarians are too stupid to accurately differentiate friend from foe.

    Or are we...?
    Nice lies. Every opportunity? Lie:
    http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...Freedom-Summit

    I posted that thread, and simply mentioned that I saw Rand wasn't speaking at it in it. Nothing else. Show me the scream, please.
    Last edited by jjdoyle; 01-26-2015 at 12:25 PM.



  6. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  7. #65
    Quote Originally Posted by jjdoyle View Post
    How is stating Rand and his team might have written off Iowa, a firebomb? Politics is local, and Rand might just be concentrating on New Hampshire for his first win, but hoping for a top three finish in Iowa. I do know how much Ron Paul 2012 has spent on legal/law firms since the FEC investigation broke though, so maybe they were able to pay enough to get the entire thing white washed?

    So, maybe Iowa will be in place, but maybe not necessarily for first outright. Rand is trying to win, but I think he is trying to win with the wrong positions and wrong (or, no) talking points. I'm not the only one that sees these walks backs, clarifications, and position changes as problems Rand is creating for himself.
    How is it a firebomb? Suppose the man dearly wants to win Iowa. Do you really imagine that trying your best to start a rumor that he considers the whole state beneath consideration is really helpful in some way or another?

    Quote Originally Posted by jjdoyle View Post
    Nice lies. Every opportunity? Lie:
    http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...Freedom-Summit

    I posted that thread, and simply mentioned that I saw Rand wasn't speaking at it in it. Nothing else. Show me the scream, please.
    You mean the thread which contained this quote...?

    “Congressman Steve King and I are thrilled Governor Scott Walker, a leading conservative voice, plans to attend the Iowa Freedom Summit,” Bossie said. “The Iowa Caucus is the first step for any conservative running for the Republican nomination and we are pleased Governor Walker appreciates and respects its importance.”
    Uh huh. Good luck with that...

    http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...-rally-in-Iowa!
    Last edited by acptulsa; 01-26-2015 at 12:34 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    We believe our lying eyes...

  8. #66
    Account Restricted. Admin to review account standing


    Posts
    1,489
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Quote Originally Posted by acptulsa View Post
    How is it a firebomb? Suppose the man dearly wants to win Iowa. Do you really imagine that trying your best to start a rumor that he considers the whole state beneath consideration is really helpful in some way or another?

    You mean the thread which contained this quote...?

    Uh huh. Good luck with that...

    http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...-rally-in-Iowa!
    A direct quote from the article is not a scream. I posted a direct quote, where did I scream anything? Liar.

    And I wouldn't doubt that Rand would want to win Iowa, what presidential candidate in 2016 wouldn't want to win it? But, he/his team may be looking at it realistically and thinking that spending a ton of money and time on it, might not be the best strategy because of a certain situation from 2012, and a certain candidate potentially running in 2016 (Huckabee). Politics is local. Nothing about it being beneath his consideration. If he is thinking about it, that is consideration. But they may be looking at the full picture, and seeing the "What IFs", like a Huckabee run, etc.

    Which, could be why Rand didn't attend the recent event. Maybe he knows he can't compete with the Huckabee type candidates at their source (think of the Values Voters Summit where he spoke), so he will try and work around it.

    But I do think saying upfront that Iowa isn't the first goal, is HELPFUL in the grassroots, because it helps expectations. People don't go into Iowa like 2012, being told the experts have it in the bag and they don't need help. We can say, "Okay, he's looking for a top 3 finish, and then New Hampshire."

  9. #67
    Quote Originally Posted by jjdoyle View Post
    A direct quote from the article is not a scream. I posted a direct quote, where did I scream anything? Liar.

    And I wouldn't doubt that Rand would want to win Iowa, what presidential candidate in 2016 wouldn't want to win it? But, he/his team may be looking at it realistically and thinking that spending a ton of money and time on it, might not be the best strategy because of a certain situation from 2012, and a certain candidate potentially running in 2016 (Huckabee). Politics is local. Nothing about it being beneath his consideration. If he is thinking about it, that is consideration. But they may be looking at the full picture, and seeing the "What IFs", like a Huckabee run, etc.

    Which, could be why Rand didn't attend the recent event. Maybe he knows he can't compete with the Huckabee type candidates at their source (think of the Values Voters Summit where he spoke), so he will try and work around it.

    But I do think saying upfront that Iowa isn't the first goal, is HELPFUL in the grassroots, because it helps expectations. People don't go into Iowa like 2012, being told the experts have it in the bag and they don't need help. We can say, "Okay, he's looking for a top 3 finish, and then New Hampshire."
    New Hampshire is crucial... Iowa has been poor at picking the nominee though I still think Rand can take all the early contests

  10. #68
    //
    Last edited by specsaregood; 05-16-2016 at 09:43 PM.

  11. #69
    Quote Originally Posted by Traditional Conservative View Post
    "Mitt Romney won the nomination in 2012 and is hardly a social conservative nor did he appeal to them. Iowa is overrated. NH Is the important state to win as far as the nomination goes." By Warlord

    How do you figure? Romney ran as a hardcore social conservative both times. Pro life, supported a federal marriage amendment, opposed drug legalization, etc.
    No, he didn't RUN as a hardcore conservative.

    He pandered to them by pretending to take their positions. Anyone with a brain should have known that once he got elected he'd sell out each and every one of those positions. And if they DIDN'T know that? Well, that's my point. I'm sick of the freakin idiots in Iowa deciding the nominee! They're the most gullible bunch of suckers in our nation!
    Few men have virtue enough to withstand the highest bidder. ~GEORGE WASHINGTON, letter, Aug. 17, 1779

    Quit yer b*tching and whining and GET INVOLVED!!

  12. #70
    Quote Originally Posted by mosquitobite View Post
    No, he didn't RUN as a hardcore conservative.

    He pandered to them by pretending to take their positions. Anyone with a brain should have known that once he got elected he'd sell out each and every one of those positions. And if they DIDN'T know that? Well, that's my point. I'm sick of the freakin idiots in Iowa deciding the nominee! They're the most gullible bunch of suckers in our nation!
    Which goes again to my point. The so-cons in Iowa are a lost cause. They only do what the television tells them to do. It either that or they listen to people like Steve Deace who only wants Rand around to sell more tickets. Once he makes his money, he tells his flock of stupid sheep that God wants them to vote for Huckabee, or Santorum, or Ted Cruz or whoever else he feel loves Jesus the most. And the sheep go, "bbbbbaaaaaaaa"

  13. #71
    This was nothing more than a meeting of has-beens and never-will-bes. Rand was right to skip.

  14. #72
    "You can't ignore the Republican Party base and have any real chance to win the GOP nomination."

    Bob Dole, George Bush II, John McCain and Mitt Romney all say hello. Maybe they don't win Iowa but as long as you finish in the top 3-4, you move on. There's more to the party than just the SoCon base.

    Maybe Rand should have been at the "Response" with Bobby Jindal in Baton Rouge. That would have been a hoot. Talk about being with extremists.



  15. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  16. #73
    "ut, he/his team may be looking at it realistically and thinking that spending a ton of money and time on it, might not be the best strategy because of a certain situation from 2012, and a certain candidate potentially running in 2016 (Huckabee)."

    I'm curious how they'll plan to play the straw poll then. It was Paul's supporters in the party that wanted to keep the thing going.

  17. #74
    So what do the socons do when their candidate drops out, especially when they already have won delegates?

  18. #75
    Quote Originally Posted by jjdoyle View Post
    A direct quote from the article is not a scream. I posted a direct quote, where did I scream anything? Liar.
    So, everything I said about your intent, your strategy, your technique and your end goal is true (it must be; you don't seem to be refuting it) but I exaggerated your style so you're going to use that as an excuse to call me a liar.

    Uh huh. Good luck with that, too.

    Quote Originally Posted by jjdoyle View Post
    And I wouldn't doubt that Rand would want to win Iowa, what presidential candidate in 2016 wouldn't want to win it? But, he/his team may be looking at it realistically and thinking that spending a ton of money and time on it, might not be the best strategy...
    Oh, it isn't that you're trying to convince Iowans that Rand Paul hates them, it's that you're trying to convince us to give up on it as hopeless? Well, isn't that special...

    Quote Originally Posted by jjdoyle View Post
    ...because of a certain situation from 2012...
    Are we talking about Ron Paul? Gee, I thought we were talking about Rand Paul. Are you sure you can tell the difference? Here's a hint--Rand is the one you go to in order to get a set of corrective lenses that will allow you to tell the difference between them at a glance, and Ron is the one you go to when you're feeling like a big baby.

    Quote Originally Posted by jjdoyle View Post
    ...and a certain candidate potentially running in 2016 (Huckabee). Politics is local. Nothing about it being beneath his consideration. If he is thinking about it, that is consideration. But they may be looking at the full picture, and seeing the "What IFs", like a Huckabee run, etc.
    Huckabee is incredibly irrelevant. Nixon couldn't be more irrelevant, and he's dead.

    Quote Originally Posted by jjdoyle View Post
    Which, could be why Rand didn't attend the recent event. Maybe he knows he can't compete with the Huckabee type candidates at their source (think of the Values Voters Summit where he spoke), so he will try and work around it.
    Oh, is that why he's holding an Audit the Fed Rally in Des Moines? A rally where he will not be lost in a sea of future also-rans waiting to be doled out five minutes to speak, but an event where he will be featured, honored and front and center?

    Quote Originally Posted by jjdoyle View Post
    But I do think saying upfront that Iowa isn't the first goal, is HELPFUL in the grassroots, because it helps expectations. People don't go into Iowa like 2012, being told the experts have it in the bag and they don't need help. We can say, "Okay, he's looking for a top 3 finish, and then New Hampshire."
    No, it isn't. A win in Iowa is a plus in any case, and if the grassroots can find a way to win it then anyone who tries to discourage them from trying is an enemy to America, an enemy to liberty and an enemy to me.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    We believe our lying eyes...

  19. #76
    LOL what candidate goes to Iowa and says they just want to place in the top 3?

  20. #77
    Quote Originally Posted by jjdoyle View Post

    But I do think saying upfront that Iowa isn't the first goal, is HELPFUL in the grassroots, because it helps expectations. People don't go into Iowa like 2012, being told the experts have it in the bag and they don't need help. We can say, "Okay, he's looking for a top 3 finish, and then New Hampshire."
    Are you serious? saying you want a top 3 finish is what you say right before the results come in, as damage control. Even if top 3 is your expectation (not your goal, you would always like to win) you don't just say that before you have bought a single ad. I think Rand Paul has a far better chance of winning Iowa in 2016, than people thought Santorum did in early 2011.

    Santorum was not a player until Bachmann, and Perry, the more likely choice of his base had fizzled out. Rand Paul has far greater assets than Santorum had. And remember, the official report for some time was that Romney had won.
    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    It's a balance between appeasing his supporters, appeasing the deep state and reaching his own goals.
    ~Resident Badgiraffe




  21. #78
    Account Restricted. Admin to review account standing


    Posts
    1,489
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Quote Originally Posted by CPUd View Post
    LOL what candidate goes to Iowa and says they just want to place in the top 3?
    Ron Paul 2012?
    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/68065.html

    John McCain skipped it basically.

    Quote Originally Posted by acptulsa View Post
    Are we talking about Ron Paul? Gee, I thought we were talking about Rand Paul. Are you sure you can tell the difference? Here's a hint--Rand is the one you go to in order to get a set of corrective lenses that will allow you to tell the difference between them at a glance, and Ron is the one you go to when you're feeling like a big baby.
    I'm talking about Ron Paul 2012 and how Rand Paul was part of that campaign, sending fundraising emails, and being linked to it. The Kent Sorenson issue very well could be used as an attack ad, in Iowa. Same against Bachmann if she were to run (which I doubt, but never know with some delusional politicians).

    Quote Originally Posted by acptulsa View Post
    Huckabee is incredibly irrelevant. Nixon couldn't be more irrelevant, and he's dead.
    Huckabee is irrelevant, because? He won Iowa and multiple other states in 2008? He almost won South Carolina in 2008, and I would imagine he would take it this time if he chooses to run. Simply based on the vote totals and the fact he has worked on building his name recognition the last 8 years to that particular base.

    Quote Originally Posted by acptulsa View Post
    Oh, is that why he's holding an Audit the Fed Rally in Des Moines? A rally where he will not be lost in a sea of future also-rans waiting to be doled out five minutes to speak, but an event where he will be featured, honored and front and center?
    That's what I said, perhaps he is going to try a work around and not go toe-to-toe at events like a Values Voters Summit, because it isn't worth his time and it's not his target audience? Though, I think he could pick some of those so-cons up.

    Quote Originally Posted by acptulsa View Post
    No, it isn't. A win in Iowa is a plus in any case, and if the grassroots can find a way to win it then anyone who tries to discourage them from trying is an enemy to America, an enemy to liberty and an enemy to me.
    I agree, a win would be great in Iowa, but also setting expectations and saying that he will concentrate on certain states is 100% okay. Candidates have done that in the past, with some basically skipping Iowa entirely (again, John McCain in 2008):
    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...t_in_iowa.html (Interestingly enough, that article is from today.)

    But, you must have hated Ron Paul 2012 and Matt Collins who were telling the grassroots to stay away from Iowa, not to watch the vote, and that the campaign had everything under control in 2012? I was one that saw a problem and tried to help the campaign address it, in Iowa. They didn't. I then used the "my enemy's enemy is my friend" tactic, and got another campaign to try and help.

    I think there is a way for Rand to reach a good bit of the so-con base, but he isn't doing it. Do you go after voters that you have/most likely have, or go for the ones you don't have yet?
    Last edited by jjdoyle; 01-26-2015 at 03:16 PM.

  22. #79
    John McCain is not my role model, no politician in his right mind will target someone's father in an attack ad, Huckabee is irrelevant because he can't even win the nomination, much less the general, I never listened to Matt Collins in my whole life, and John McCain is still not my role model.

    And you don't expand your base by going to Losers' Summits.

    No excuses for your (mod edit)
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    We believe our lying eyes...

  23. #80
    Account Restricted. Admin to review account standing


    Posts
    1,489
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Quote Originally Posted by acptulsa View Post
    John McCain is not my role model, no politician in his right mind will target someone's father in an attack ad, Huckabee is irrelevant because he can't even win the nomination, much less the general, I never listened to Matt Collins in my whole life, and John McCain is still not my role model.

    No excuses for your (mod edit)
    You are a (mod edit) Ignore the facts, like John McCain skipping Iowa and winning the nomination. It's a fact. Ignore the fact that Huckabee dominated Iowa in 2008, and will most likely win more states this time if he runs. You can ignore those things, but it doesn't change them from facts and history.

    And you (mod edit) how PACs operate. PACs do a politician's dirty work, to keep the politician's hands clean. PACs are the scum of politics, and they will link Ron and Rand all day long. I have seen the ad used in another campaign in 2012 and the ad was professionally done, and with a few line changes will be used as a Rand Paul 2016 attack ad. If the ad has a large ad buy, like what Ron Paul 2012 did to Newt in Iowa, it will be heavy and hard.

    I'm sorry you (mod edit), but some around here have read the ad as it was produced. And they agree with a few line changes, it will be a Rand Paul 2016 attack ad. It's why Rand Paul is taking certain positions he is now, to try and be able to produce his own ads to counter the attack ads coming.

    Nothing excuses your (mod edit)



  24. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  25. #81
    Quote Originally Posted by CPUd View Post
    So what do the socons do when their candidate drops out, especially when they already have won delegates?
    That's the crux of the socon issue. I know two things: (1) Rand will not be the first choice of the socons, and (2) the person who is the first choice of the socons will not be the nominee. So, we will sooner or later end up in a situation where the socon candidate drops and has to endorse either Rand or the establishment candidate. If I were Team Rand, all my thoughts on the socons would be bent on how to secure that endorsement.

  26. #82
    Quote Originally Posted by Traditional Conservative View Post
    It's just ridiculous if people are going to say that you don't "support Rand" if you ever disagree with his campaign strategy. I support Rand, which is why I speak out when he does something that I think is harmful to his chances to win. I remember a lot of criticism of Ron Paul's campaign strategy in 2012 by a lot of people. I certainly don't think those people were fake Ron Paul supporters. I think they just wanted him to win.

    Rand should be in crisis mode right now. He has spent the last two years campaigning for President and has positioned himself as well as he could for a general election. The problem is that he lost a significant amount of ground and become totally unacceptable to a large swath of the party. There also doesn't seem to be a lot of enthusiasm among a lot of Ron Paul supporters.

    He should do well on paper. Ron Paul almost won Iowa and state GOP elected Spiker. He did well in NH. But this is a much tougher field and Rand isn't even doing that great among Ron Paul supporters. He is really in danger of being someone like Gary Johnson or Huntsman. A lot is going to have to go right over the next year and I am skeptical that Rand can make it happen.

  27. #83
    J.J., how did McCain even come up? Are you still trying to convince us Rand Paul doesn't care about Iowa, even in the face of the fact that he's about to hold an event there where he will be the star attraction?

    Oh, and thank you. 'Tis better to be called a (mod edit) than to be publicly bested by someone one considers a (mod edit)...
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    We believe our lying eyes...

  28. #84
    Quote Originally Posted by Badger Paul View Post
    "You can't ignore the Republican Party base and have any real chance to win the GOP nomination."

    Bob Dole, George Bush II, John McCain and Mitt Romney all say hello. Maybe they don't win Iowa but as long as you finish in the top 3-4, you move on. There's more to the party than just the SoCon base.

    Maybe Rand should have been at the "Response" with Bobby Jindal in Baton Rouge. That would have been a hoot. Talk about being with extremists.
    Well, I would argue that it's more important for Rand to win Iowa than it was for those establishment Republicans you mentioned. Those establishment Republicans are pushed by the media as front runners for the Republican nomination even when they perform poorly in Iowa. Rand doesn't get the same type of treatment by the media, so my thinking is that he needs to win Iowa in order to avoid a black out by the media.

  29. #85
    Quote Originally Posted by Krugminator2 View Post
    Rand should be in crisis mode right now. He has spent the last two years campaigning for President and has positioned himself as well as he could for a general election. The problem is that he lost a significant amount of ground and become totally unacceptable to a large swath of the party. There also doesn't seem to be a lot of enthusiasm among a lot of Ron Paul supporters.

    He should do well on paper. Ron Paul almost won Iowa and state GOP elected Spiker. He did well in NH. But this is a much tougher field and Rand isn't even doing that great among Ron Paul supporters. He is really in danger of being someone like Gary Johnson or Huntsman. A lot is going to have to go right over the next year and I am skeptical that Rand can make it happen.
    Quote Originally Posted by Traditional Conservative View Post
    Well, I would argue that it's more important for Rand to win Iowa than it was for those establishment Republicans you mentioned. Those establishment Republicans are pushed by the media as front runners for the Republican nomination even when they perform poorly in Iowa. Rand doesn't get the same type of treatment by the media, so my thinking is that he needs to win Iowa in order to avoid a black out by the media.
    LOL at your doom and gloom.

    His father's performance means little. His father's supporters distrusted him only because the MSM wasn't treating him like his father; now that this has changed, we're separating the wheat from the trolls quite quickly and handily. And the largest swath of the party hasn't even thought about it yet.

    If you want us to take our ball and go home, you're going to have to do a damned sight better than that.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    We believe our lying eyes...

  30. #86
    Quote Originally Posted by acptulsa View Post
    If you want us to take our ball and go home, you're going to have to do a damned sight better than that.
    Where do you get that kind of stuff from? I've said the exact opposite throughout the entire thread, that I want Rand to start trying harder. I want him to reach out to voters in Iowa and stop skipping events there. I'm going to do everything I possibly can to get Rand elected in 2016. I think the other GOP candidates are just awful, from what I've seen so far. All of them are basically calling for at least 5 or 6 additional wars overseas. I feel like Rand is our only hope, that our country isn't going to last much longer if he doesn't become President. I'm going to work hard at getting him elected, whatever I can do from where I live. That would include donating, making phone calls, etc. I'm not sure whether it could work out to actually make it up to Iowa for a week before the caucuses to campaign for him, but I've even thought about that as well. I'm going to do whatever I can for him, but that also includes offering advice on what I believe he needs to do to give himself a better chance to win.
    Last edited by Brett85; 01-26-2015 at 04:45 PM.

  31. #87
    On the night of Iowa Caucus 2012 and in the eyes of the media and public perception, Mitt Romney, a moderate, won Iowa.

    Says a lot about the socon vote and says a lot about Steve Deace. Just because somebody is christian, it doesn't mean they dont' like to hop on the perceived frontrunners' bandwagon.
    THE SQUAD of RPF
    1. enhanced_deficit - Paid Troll / John Bolton book promoter
    2. Devil21 - LARPing Wizard, fake magical script reader
    3. Firestarter - Tax Troll; anti-tax = "criminal behavior"
    4. TheCount - Comet Pizza Pedo Denier <-- sick

    @Ehanced_Deficit's real agenda on RPF =troll:

    Who spends this much time copy/pasting the same recycled links, photos/talking points.

    7 yrs/25k posts later RPF'ers still respond to this troll

  32. #88
    Account Restricted. Admin to review account standing


    Posts
    1,489
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Quote Originally Posted by eleganz View Post
    On the night of Iowa Caucus 2012 and in the eyes of the media and public perception, Mitt Romney, a moderate, won Iowa.

    Says a lot about the socon vote and says a lot about Steve Deace. Just because somebody is christian, it doesn't mean they dont' like to hop on the perceived frontrunners' bandwagon.
    Yeah, Steve Deace had endorsed Newt Gingrich. But, Romney basically got the exact same number of votes in 2012 in Iowa (I think a little less), as he did in 2008. Huckabee got basically 11,000 more votes in 2008, than Rick Santorum did in 2012. Ron Paul increased from just under 12,000 votes in 2008, to just over 26,000 votes in 2012. So, an increase of almost 15,000 votes from 2008 to 2012. I would say there had to be some so-cons in that group, which is why trying to aim for them and pick up more in Iowa could be beneficial.

    I think the point TC was making, is why wouldn't Rand try for some of the so-con vote at that event? Yes, he is going to Iowa for a Audit the Fed rally, I would imagine he has those voters locked though? If not, that is interesting. He is also doing a meet and greet early that morning with a local rep, and then doing the college game and doing a college event with students at the end of it. Similar strategy as Ron Paul 2012 with hitting the college campus(es) apparently.

    It was discussed in another thread on another candidate/campaign, and the strategy of going after voters you don't have, instead of simply going after the voters you do have. Rand has been doing a lot in regards to the General Election it would seem and trying to get cross-over Democrats/Independents on certain issues, but not as much in regards to the GOP voters that will turn out and vote in the GOP primary/caucuses.

    And the point of mentioning John McCain was it wouldn't surprise me if Rand Paul writes off Iowa if Huckabee runs, based on Huckabee's numbers from 2008. John McCain still had a path to the White House without Iowa, does Rand?
    Of course winning Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Florida would be awesome (and basically seal it), but outside of New Hampshire, I'm looking for the path and not seeing it right now if there is a Huckabee in the race. That's my realistic view, based on the past elections and races and who got what states and the number of voters in each during the GOP's primary/caucus.

    If there is a path and method to winning Iowa, I would say it would be trying to get more so-con votes, like what was at the event this past weekend.



  33. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  34. #89
    Quote Originally Posted by Traditional Conservative View Post
    Where do you get that kind of stuff from? I've said the exact opposite throughout the entire thread, that I want Rand to start trying harder. I want him to reach out to voters in Iowa and stop skipping events there. I'm going to do everything I possibly can to get Rand elected in 2016. I think the other GOP candidates are just awful, from what I've seen so far...
    When that is the case, one generally makes the suggestion when it can do some good, and shows some interest when it comes out that the candidate is doing something else in the state instead, where he will get more of the spotlight and won't be associating with a bunch of losers.

    One seldom harps on the candidate for days after the event in question, whilst telling his supporters that they've just lost and that their quest is now quixotic.

    Quote Originally Posted by jjdoyle View Post
    I think the point TC was making, is why wouldn't Rand try for some of the so-con vote at that event? Yes, he is going to Iowa for a Audit the Fed rally, I would imagine he has those voters locked though? If not, that is interesting. He is also doing a meet and greet early that morning with a local rep, and then doing the college game and doing a college event with students at the end of it. Similar strategy as Ron Paul 2012 with hitting the college campus(es) apparently.

    It was discussed in another thread on another candidate/campaign, and the strategy of going after voters you don't have, instead of simply going after the voters you do have. Rand has been doing a lot in regards to the General Election it would seem and trying to get cross-over Democrats/Independents on certain issues, but not as much in regards to the GOP voters that will turn out and vote in the GOP primary/caucuses.

    And the point of mentioning John McCain was it wouldn't surprise me if Rand Paul writes off Iowa if Huckabee runs, based on Huckabee's numbers from 2008...
    If his current supporters are so locked in and so beneath consideration, why are you trying to divorce him from us by any trick you can devise?

    Or are you going to deny that you're doing that now...?

    Quote Originally Posted by jjdoyle View Post
    At this point, you won't get one single dime from me Rand, not one single dime. I hope your backroom deal was signed in blood with video cameras rolling and audio and you have the clips ready to release for the world, because I won't be donating one single dime to you, Rand PAC, or any presidential campaign.
    And if inflation is such a narrowly appreciated issue, why was the White House Chief of Staff on every broadcast Sunday Morning Blather Show yesterday talking about how stagnant wages and inflation are destroying the middle class, and pretending that people should ignore Republicans because none of them are addressing it?
    Last edited by acptulsa; 01-26-2015 at 06:14 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    We believe our lying eyes...

  35. #90
    Quote Originally Posted by twomp View Post
    Oh please they are no longer the "Republican Base", Mitt Romney won the nomination just fine without their support so get off your high horse. IT's time for the So-Cons to step out of the 80's, they are no longer relevant outside of Iowa and a few states and within Iowa they are losing their power as well. Look around the country, half the states now recognize gay marriage. More and more states are allowing Marijuana use. The So-cons and their hypocritical policies are dying off. (Literally) And our country will be more free because of it.
    Sorry but having states "recognize" gay marriage is not becoming more free, it is the opposite. We don't gain freedom by accepting that the government has the final say on who can and can't get married. Furthermore, we will soon be living in a world were pastors and other religiously inspired people will be fined and/or arrested and have their churches/businesses shut down for refusing to marry people. That is not becoming more free at all. So-cons are wrong on foreign policy but are allies in economic issues, abortion, and a number of other issues.
    I am more and more convinced that man is a dangerous creature and that power, whether vested in many or a few, is ever grasping, and like the grave, cries, 'Give, give.'

    Abigail Adams

Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 64
    Last Post: 07-22-2013, 12:42 PM
  2. Replies: 11
    Last Post: 03-10-2013, 11:08 AM
  3. Steve Deace predicts Ron Paul win for Iowa
    By lucent in forum Ron Paul Forum
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 01-02-2012, 02:31 PM
  4. What the Iowa Poll Means-Steve Deace
    By IndianaPolitico in forum Ron Paul Forum
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 12-05-2011, 12:23 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •