Ron Paul On The Record

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
521

[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
Ames Straw Poll Results: Romney Wins, Paul takes 5th Place with 9.1%

11th place: John Cox (41 votes, 0.3%)
10th place: John McCain (101 votes, 0.7%)
9th place: Duncan Hunter (174 votes, 1.2%)
8th place: Rudy Giuliani (183 votes, 1.3%)
7th place: Fred Thompson (203 votes, 1.4%)
6th place: Tommy Thompson (1,039 votes, 7.3%)
5th place: Ron Paul (1,305 votes, 9.1%)
4th place: Tom Tancredo (1,961 votes, 13.7%)
3rd place: Sam Brownback (2,192 votes, 15.3%)
2nd place: Mike Huckabee (2,587 votes, 18.1%)
1st place: Mitt Romney (4,516 votes, 31.6%)

News and commentary:
http://www.iowaindependent.com/magFront.do

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1879808/posts

Video:

http://www.c-span.org/watch/cs_cspan_wm.asp?Cat=TV&Code=CS

My comments:
Overall, a moderate disappointment for Ron Paul.
As a result of today’s events, I believe he is now running a symbolic candidacy and no longer has a chance at winning the nomination.

There is still reason to believe that Paul has the staying power to make it to the primaries, but he won’t get the surge in popularity that a 2nd-place finish could have provided. Instead, that will go to Mike Huckabee and Brownback.

The placing of the other candidates is very interesting, and more-or-less confirms the predictions that I’ve made up to this point. Here’s what can be said:

-Romney is going to get a huge upsurge and within a month he’ll have tied or surpassed Rudy in the polls. The latter is going to continue his long dive to the bottom (which has already begun).

-There is now strong pressure on Fred to declare. If he waits any longer, Romney will simply run away with the nomination. Expect a formal announcement from him very soon.

-McCain is a goner, although everybody already knew that 2 months ago.

Final Verdict: The Republican nomination will go to either Mitt Romney or Fred Thompson. Whomever among them loses the nomination will run on the VP ticket in the general election. That is assuming that Fred actually declares and doesn’t drop out. If the latter occurs, all bets are off, and I will revise my prediction.

General election 08:
Clinton/Obama
vs.
Thompson/Romney

It will be too close to predict. Could go either way, given the current political climate. And that’s assuming that Bush won’t bomb Iran before he leaves office.[/quote]

Frankly, considering how little money the Ron Paul campaign spent on the event coupled with the “scientific polls” continually placing him at 1%-3% the votes received is quite surprising. My expectations were to witness his votes at AMes to reflect the “scientific” polls distributed by the MSM. Obviously Paul’s placement exceeded my expectations. Dr. Paul’s campaign is still on the upswing, thus there appears to be little reason to give up NP.

523

[quote]cloakmanor wrote:
Frankly, considering how little money the Ron Paul campaign spent on the event coupled with the “scientific polls” continually placing him at 1%-3% the votes received is quite surprising. My expectations were to witness his votes at AMes to reflect the “scientific” polls distributed by the MSM. Obviously Paul’s placement exceeded my expectations. Dr. Paul’s campaign is still on the upswing, thus there appears to be little reason to give up NP.[/quote]

cloak,

That’s hilarious.

This straw poll is only useful to keep Romney alive. It meant little else.

However, it does show that paul does horribly when his stats aren’t padded by adolescents hitting the vote button more than once.

JeffR

524

[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
Ames Straw Poll Results: Romney Wins, Paul takes 5th Place with 9.1%

11th place: John Cox (41 votes, 0.3%)
10th place: John McCain (101 votes, 0.7%)
9th place: Duncan Hunter (174 votes, 1.2%)
8th place: Rudy Giuliani (183 votes, 1.3%)
7th place: Fred Thompson (203 votes, 1.4%)
6th place: Tommy Thompson (1,039 votes, 7.3%)
5th place: Ron Paul (1,305 votes, 9.1%)
4th place: Tom Tancredo (1,961 votes, 13.7%)
3rd place: Sam Brownback (2,192 votes, 15.3%)
2nd place: Mike Huckabee (2,587 votes, 18.1%)
1st place: Mitt Romney (4,516 votes, 31.6%)

News and commentary:
http://www.iowaindependent.com/magFront.do

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1879808/posts

Video:

http://www.c-span.org/watch/cs_cspan_wm.asp?Cat=TV&Code=CS

My comments:
Overall, a moderate disappointment for Ron Paul.
As a result of today’s events, I believe he is now running a symbolic candidacy and no longer has a chance at winning the nomination.

There is still reason to believe that Paul has the staying power to make it to the primaries, but he won’t get the surge in popularity that a 2nd-place finish could have provided. Instead, that will go to Mike Huckabee and Brownback.

The placing of the other candidates is very interesting, and more-or-less confirms the predictions that I’ve made up to this point. Here’s what can be said:

-Romney is going to get a huge upsurge and within a month he’ll have tied or surpassed Rudy in the polls. The latter is going to continue his long dive to the bottom (which has already begun).

-There is now strong pressure on Fred to declare. If he waits any longer, Romney will simply run away with the nomination. Expect a formal announcement from him very soon.

-McCain is a goner, although everybody already knew that 2 months ago.

Final Verdict: The Republican nomination will go to either Mitt Romney or Fred Thompson. Whomever among them loses the nomination will run on the VP ticket in the general election. That is assuming that Fred actually declares and doesn’t drop out. If the latter occurs, all bets are off, and I will revise my prediction.

General election 08:
Clinton/Obama
vs.
Thompson/Romney

It will be too close to predict. Could go either way, given the current political climate. And that’s assuming that Bush won’t bomb Iran before he leaves office.[/quote]

Nah,

Romney’s going to do well in N.H. Then the campaign’s going to swing nationally, and Rudy’s going to walk away with this.

In light of recent comments, I’m wondering if Rudy will ask McCain to join him as number two. I don’t think McCain will accept.

I expect Rudy/Thompson as the ticket.

JeffR

525

Ron Paul reminds me of Cincinnatus, of Roman history fame. I then imagine Cincinnatus appearing in Rome in about 185 A.D. and telling the spectators at the Coliseum to return to small government, sound money, cutbacks on social spending and so forth.

Here come the lions…

526

Nommy, props on looking at the results and adjusting your expectations.

527

[quote]JeffR wrote:
cloak,

That’s hilarious.

This straw poll is only useful to keep Romney alive. It meant little else.

However, it does show that paul does horribly when his stats aren’t padded by adolescents hitting the vote button more than once.

JeffR

[/quote]

Part of my point was that the “scientific” polls were obviously off by approximately 300-600% (i.e., 1%-3% as opposed to the surprising actual 9%) in relation to the votes Dr. Paul received at Ames. Second, I has suspicions that the results at Ames would reflect Ron Paul’s results in the scientific polls. Rather than winning or placing a close second at Ames, as some have predicted, or being relegated to the 1-3% range his results appear somewhere closer to the middle in this case.

Basically, one camp was overly optimistic while the opposing side was overly pessimistic. Whether or not these “means anything” is irrelevant since the point was directed toward those predicting one extreme or the other.

528

[quote]cloakmanor wrote:
JeffR wrote:
cloak,

That’s hilarious.

This straw poll is only useful to keep Romney alive. It meant little else.

However, it does show that paul does horribly when his stats aren’t padded by adolescents hitting the vote button more than once.

JeffR

Part of my point was that the “scientific” polls were obviously off by approximately 300-600% (i.e., 1%-3% as opposed to the surprising actual 9%) in relation to the votes Dr. Paul received at Ames. Second, I has suspicions that the results at Ames would reflect Ron Paul’s results in the scientific polls. Rather than winning or placing a close second at Ames, as some have predicted, or being relegated to the 1-3% range his results appear somewhere closer to the middle in this case.

Basically, one camp was overly optimistic while the opposing side was overly pessimistic. Whether or not these “means anything” is irrelevant since the point was directed toward those predicting one extreme or the other.[/quote]

cloak,

You missed the part where they looked at HOW MANY PEOPLE ACTUALLY VOTED.

This is an infinitesimal sampling size.

Therefore, when I sell you my old shoes, I’m going to tack on a few extra zeros. (It looks like you don’t notice numbers)

JeffR

529

[quote]JeffR wrote:
cloak,

You missed the part where they looked at HOW MANY PEOPLE ACTUALLY VOTED.

This is an infinitesimal sampling size.

Therefore, when I sell you my old shoes, I’m going to tack on a few extra zeros. (It looks like you don’t notice numbers)

JeffR
[/quote]

JeffR,

Yes indeed, it’s quite true that the voter turn out was low (frankly, I did notice this) in comparison to previous occasions. Given the significant gap in fund raising between the current Democratic and Republican candidates (an important point in my opinion) the low turn out at Ames could probably be attributed to the tremendous dissatisfaction with the GOP and the present administration.

Again, my point isn’t to proclaim that Dr. Paul will win or lose the Republican primary. The point was to explicate my viewpoints as it relates to the personal surprise at how little Dr. Paul spent at Ames while simultaneously receiving an unexpected 9%.

Incidentally, and if I’m not mistaken, I believe the Ron Paul campaign spent approximately $200 p/voter compared to the $2000 p/voter spent by the Romney campaign.

Further input is welcome.

530

[quote]cloakmanor wrote:
JeffR wrote:
cloak,

You missed the part where they looked at HOW MANY PEOPLE ACTUALLY VOTED.

This is an infinitesimal sampling size.

Therefore, when I sell you my old shoes, I’m going to tack on a few extra zeros. (It looks like you don’t notice numbers)

JeffR

JeffR,

Yes indeed, it’s quite true that the voter turn out was low (frankly, I did notice this) in comparison to previous occasions. Given the significant gap in fund raising between the current Democratic and Republican candidates (an important point in my opinion) the low turn out at Ames could probably be attributed to the tremendous dissatisfaction with the GOP and the present administration.

Again, my point isn’t to proclaim that Dr. Paul will win or lose the Republican primary. The point was to explicate my viewpoints as it relates to the personal surprise at how little Dr. Paul spent at Ames while simultaneously receiving an unexpected 9%.

Incidentally, and if I’m not mistaken, I believe the Ron Paul campaign spent approximately $200 p/voter compared to the $2000 p/voter spent by the Romney campaign.

Further input is welcome.[/quote]

Nah,

Again I wouldn’t read anything more into this than Romney spent big and won an informal poll.

Had the big boys been there, the turnout would have been MUCH larger.

Rudy has begun to work Iowa. For strategic reasons he skipped this earlier contest.

I heard Romney talking trash about Rudy, FT, and McCain. He said he “ran them out of Iowa.”

What a bunch of life-support spouting, claptrap.

I’m open to FT. However, I just can’t warm up to Romney.

JeffR

P.S. I did like Thompson arriving on a Harley. Might as well go out with a bang.

533

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
What I wonder is why you, or anyone else is even talking about Paul anymore. No really…it’s over…as if he ever had a chance… Ha.
[/quote]

First of all his campaign is quite interesting, regardless of the results.

Why not? Perhaps it would be prudent to mention that my part in this discussion isn’t necessarily related to whether or not his chances of political success are possible but rather his exposer in delivering his message. The battle for the ideas which he supports will probably be won in the intellectual realm rather than the political sphere. The latter cannot be achieved without the former.

Nevertheless it is interesting to point out that those who cynically predicted that Ron Paul would not even get a hearing ,so to speak, at Ames were obviously mistaken. Observe the following:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/014644.html

Perspective on Ron Paul and the Straw Poll
Posted by Tex MacRae at August 12, 2007 11:58 AM

How about a little trip down memory lane? Here’s what Iowa’s own GOP said was going to happen 6 days before the straw poll.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, Texas Congressman Ron Paul, a libertarian in the truest sense of the word, did not receive a single vote in the poll. The lone anti-war voice on the GOP stage, Paul would be unlikely to earn support, or even notice, of people involved in Republican circles enough to be an elected board member.
534

Well I guess we know which way the Republican base swings in Iowa. Not in Paul’s favor. Nothing new there.

535

[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
Ames Straw Poll Results: Romney Wins, Paul takes 5th Place with 9.1%

11th place: John Cox (41 votes, 0.3%)
10th place: John McCain (101 votes, 0.7%)
9th place: Duncan Hunter (174 votes, 1.2%)
8th place: Rudy Giuliani (183 votes, 1.3%)
7th place: Fred Thompson (203 votes, 1.4%)
6th place: Tommy Thompson (1,039 votes, 7.3%)
5th place: Ron Paul (1,305 votes, 9.1%)
4th place: Tom Tancredo (1,961 votes, 13.7%)
3rd place: Sam Brownback (2,192 votes, 15.3%)
2nd place: Mike Huckabee (2,587 votes, 18.1%)
1st place: Mitt Romney (4,516 votes, 31.6%)
[/quote]

Now that he has some name recognition he can switch to an independent or libertarian party since we know which way the rep base is swinging.

I’m still voting Ron Paul no matter who takes the nomination. He’s the only candidate that I can fully support–I hate partisan politics.

These results are nothing what MSNBC had listed. They mentioned everyone except Paul.

536

Ron Paul disappointed - but that’s not a surprise to most.

And I don’t think there is much to learn from him “doing better than anyone expected”. All the third tier candidates did better than expected, since the top tier guys largely stayed out of the poll.

Saying Paul “did better than expected” is like the old line about the rock band explaining “but we are hyooooge in Belgium!” - fantastic, but meaningless in the race is he is in.

Paul could perhaps splinter into an LP candidacy, but that isn’t anything more than a lateral move for him politically.

I like Ron Paul for the most part, and I like his willingness to enter the race and speak his mind, even when I disagreed with him. But he never had a snowball’s chance in hell - and that was the primary point we all tried to get across to his Messianic-type followers.

537

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Ron Paul disappointed - but that’s not a surprise to most.
[/quote]

Depends on whom one asks. Nevertheless his placement at Ames was indeed over-estimated by many.

538

[quote]cloakmanor wrote:

Depends on whom one asks. Nevertheless his placement at Ames was indeed over-estimated by many.
[/quote]
Wishful thinking…

539

I am biased for sure but he gave the best speech of anyone there:

Part 1 – - YouTube

Part 2 – - YouTube

540

[center][Mike Huckabee Still at 50 to 1: Romney and Paul Stay at 8 to 1
by Carrie Stroup
[/center]
http://www.gambling911.com/Mike-Huckabee-Romney-Paul-081207.html

Straw Poll results seem not to have mattered as far as the online bookmakers go. The folks at Sportsbook.com have kept big second place winner Mike Huckabee at 50 to 1 odds. Neither did Mitt Romney or Ron Paul’s numbers change. They remained at 8 to 1.

This is Carrie Stroup reporting for Gambling911.com.

While Mitt Romney won Saturday’s Straw Poll by a decent size margin, he is also reported to have spent the most money to get Iowans to the event - a few million to be exact. Huckabee admittedly only spent just over $100,000 and still came out a respectable second place.

His second place finish in the Iowa Straw Poll vaults Mike Huckabee into the top tier of Republican presidential candidates, the former Arkansas Governor said Sunday on Face The Nation.

“We’re in fact in the first tier, I think, by everybody’s estimation, and here’s why,” Huckabee told Jim Axelrod. “It wasn’t just that we surprised people with a second showing, it’s that we did it with so few resources. I mean, this really was feeding the 5,000 with two fish and five loaves, an amazing kind of day for us.”

The Huckabee campaign spent about $150,000 in the weeks before voters descended on Ames, and Huckabee said it had no bus caravans or campaign ads to attract more support.

“So when you look at what we were able to achieve, it was because people came to Ames to vote for us,” he said. “And we had remarkable stories of people who came literally from all over America to work for us.”

Sam Brownback would like to have come in second but a third place finish thanks mainly to the absence of Rudy Giuliani, John McCain and Fred Thompson, means he’ll be staying in the race a little longer.

Likewise, Tom Tancredo with 100-1 odds, had a better showing than what was initially expected.

Ron Paul’s supporters hoped for an upset, but in the end he walked off with just shy of 10% of the vote. That’s better than the 2% of the vote he supposedly has in national polls, however. His base in Ames, Iowa was rather enormous, the only probably being very few of those people could actually vote since they mostly came from out of state.

Paul’s supporters also offered up what they feel are more accurate results of their presidential candidate’s performance at the Iowa Straw Polls once you get beyond the entire “Rent-a-Republican-for-a-Day” concept.

“Ron (Paul) received nearly 77 votes per day he campaigned in Iowa, the best of all other candidates,” one Ron Paul supporter alerted us on Sunday. “In 1979, Ronald Reagan lost the Iowa Straw vote by a lot of votes. But after the loss, the first thing the campaign looked at was the vote ratio it received to the amount of time the campaign spent in Iowa. The ratio showed that Reagan did much better than all the other candidates for the amount of time he spent in Iowa, and this told the campaign that Reagan was very electable, and of course he went on to become President”.

Ron Paul, it should be pointed out, was very instrumental in getting that other Ron elected.

This is something that bodes well with diehard Republicans disenchanted with the current Bush administration. Ronald Reagan is looked upon as the “last great Republican”. Paul would do well to draw the connection more often in his campaigning from here on out.

After all, it seems to have worked for Charlie Crist, the newly elected Republican Governor of Florida. Crist campaign ads made mention of him as a “strong Ronald Reagan Republican”.

Ron Paul spoke to Gambling911 just one week prior to the Straw Poll. He is a co-sponsor with Democrat Barney Frank of legislation that would abolish online poker prohibition passed into law last October.

The good news for Romney and Huckabee may be offset by the fact that only half the expected 30,000 attendees actually decided to show up, perhaps an indication of disillusion with the Republican party.

Remember to check Gambling911.com Daily for all the latest 2008 US Presidential Betting Odds and Trends News Gambling911.com updates 24/7.