What If Ron Paul Wins Iowa?

A lot has been written about what Ron Paul would want to do if elected. How much of his platform do you think he'd actually be able to implement?

As Commander in Chief, he could bring home all the troops and end all the bullshit wars we're involved in. If that were the only thing he accomplished, he'd go down in history as one of the best Presidents.

But if he were ever elected President, I could see him going directly to the American people to get the changes he wanted implemented. No one has shown such a power to organize people as Ron Paul. He could just have supporters inundate their elected representatives to put through the legislation the American people demand, regardless of what the slugs in Congress want to do.

Ron Paul is gaining serious momentum and I really believe that he can win in Iowa.

Yesterday he was on CNN and FOX. He's getting a little more respect. Tomorrow he's going to be on Jay Leno's show.

Ron Paul 2012

Definitely interesting. However enthusiastic I am about Ron Paul's foreign policy, his stance on civil rights, drug policy etc, I am equally horrified by his economic policy. I'm not quite sure if people understand how big a recession the U.S. would be experience, if you balanced the budget right now.

Je suis un fasciste!

Ron Paul will absolutely win Iowa. A very low number of voters attend the caucus and RP has the best organization in the state and the most loyal supporters. If anything I would be surprised if he doesn't come first.

Ron Paul comes off as a very smart guy in debates, but his diction and delivery skills are about one step above that of Porky Pig. He stumbles over words sometimes at the cost of delivering his point. Even the Ron Paul fan video that got posted here a few days ago shows him tripping over words.

Ron Paul would do a better job of killing the corporate lobby in the Republican party than any other candidate. If we can get Liz Warren to propose a 75% tax on lobbying income and non-sanctioned political advertising revenue, we can move back to smarter government.

But Eddie...Iran might get a nuke! WE CAN'T ALLOW THE MOST POWERFUL NATION THE WORLD HAS EVER SEEN TO GET A NUKE!

Obviously kidding. I've been talking to a friend of mine about what the media would do if he wins Iowa. We've concluded they'd either:

--Ignore it completely and write off Iowa as unimportant (which hasn't been the case as long as Gingrich was the one surging)

or

--Continue the media-created narrative that he is a "spoiler, fringe candidate" who "can't win" because of his "kooky ideas and foreign policy."

What bothers me the most is I don't understand why they create and run with this narrative. It just doesn't make any sense.

Ron Paul would be great, however the economic situation we are in will prevent him from acheiving his ultimate goal of ending the FED. Also canidates often have high goals prior to getting the job and get slammed back down to earth when they are breifed on the way shit really works.

I will be voting for RP in the Iowa caucus.

Ron Paul winning Iowa is the best thing that can happen to Romney. Since Paul has no shot at the nomination and of course the presidency, such a result will invalidate Iowa in the eyes of the primary voters, and the contest will shift to New Hampshire, where Romney will win. He can then ride the momentum into South Carolina and Florida. If I were Romney, I would actively encourage my supporters in Iowa to caucus for Paul.

Also, major lol@edmundo's assertion that Obama lies awake at night, in fear of facing Paul. Are you freaking kidding me? Obama would PWN Paul in a general election campaign. Aside from bachmann, that would be Obama's biggest political fantasy. The man he truly fears, Jon Huntsman, is sadly not going to win the nomination because GOP primary voters are irrational, delusional, and foolish.

@Brady4MVP:

The entire "he can never win" mentality is such media-created narrative horse shit. The media constantly pushes their own stories until they become truth, it's awful, and your thought process is part of why we're currently so fucked in this country.

ps - Tom Brady can eat a dick!

Ron Paul winning Iowa is the best thing that can happen to Romney. Since Paul has no shot at the nomination and of course the presidency, such a result will invalidate Iowa in the eyes of the primary voters, and the contest will shift to New Hampshire, where Romney will win. He can then ride the momentum into South Carolina and Florida. If I were Romney, I would actively encourage my supporters in Iowa to caucus for Paul.

If he promises to move the White House from Washington to Omaha, Nebraska for four years, he will probably win in a landslide just off of that plank.

That said, one big factor that nobody has mentioned about the Iowa caucuses is the 2nd choice vote. IIRC, if less than 15% of folks in your township are voting for your candidate, you have to choose somebody else.

So the big question is whether the Bachmann, Perry, and Santorum crowd will go for Ron Paul or Newt if they can't hit the 15% threshhold. I think Bachmann's supporters will probably go for Ron Paul, but Perry and Santorum will probably go for Newt or Mitt Romney.

In order for Ron Paul to be assured of a decisive victory in Iowa, he needs to be polling north of 40% on the first choice votes.

the analogy to the 1992 is spot on. let's remember that pat buchanan actually won the new hampshire primary too. and we know how that whole shitfest ended for the GOP.

It is really easy to let my dreams run wild on this one...first Iowa, then the nomination, then Paul for POTUS!

Unfortunately this has a miniscule chance of happening...if Paul won Iowa (not entirely unlikely), the GOP would put its full force behind Romney (or maybe Gingrich). Paul is a credible threat to entirely too many of their interests, such as the military industrial complex and their Bible Belt social conservatism.

I can hope that Paul winning Iowa would give him some political clout, maybe a VP or Cabinet nomination. At the very least, his success here might cause the frame of the debates to shift in a more libertarian direction.

And TheKing makes a good point: Ron Paul could dominate Iowa, and the media would still ignore him. It's almost comical how little attention they give him. Even negative coverage would be better than complete dismissal.

I'm placing the odds at 60% Newt, 20% Ron, 15% Mitt, 5% Perry right now.

Ron Paul is the only candidate with a shot- and that's only off of the "utterly fed up with Washington" vote.

I mean, think about it:

--The media, every time they even mention Paul (which is infrequent), it's with the caveat that he "can't win" or is at best a "spoiler candidate" or a "libertarian at heart who is only a protest vote." They repeat this so often in concert with never actually covering his positions with any honesty, so lower information voters (i.e. the GOP base) only associates him with someone who can't win. So, how can he possibly build up a groundswell of national support?

--Furthermore, as soon as Cain started sliding because of all of the allegations, what did the media do? They immediately started with a "who could be the next Anti-Romney candidate? Could it be Newt? Will voters give Newt a shot?" And lo and behold, Newt starts moving up in the polls. Because of the nature of the majority of voters being misinformed, having little information, or worst of all getting their information from the likes of Limbaugh / Hannity, they only hear snippets of things, but all of them point to Newt having "momentum" and Newt being the "anti-Romney," which in turn leads to Newt moving up in the polls.

Ron Paul fights such an insane uphill battle, and it's only possible because he's been able to raise so much money from die-hard supporters so as to enable him to have a VERY legitimate ground game and TV ad campaign.

Also:

--Tom Brady has no playoff wins since the Giants owned him in Super Bowl 42

--The Patriots haven't won jack dick since they were forced to stop cheating (spygate)

--Tom Brady has been proven to be a replaceable cog in the machine that is the Patriots offense (they went 11-5 with Matt Cassell when Brady was injured, meanwhile Peyton Manning is out for the year and the Colts turn into the all-time worst team)

Lol at some of the FINANCE people on this forum who are completely ignorant to the possibility of a rare, Black Swan, event. At least describe your arguments in terms of probabilities and not certainties.

They remind me of those "6 sigma" risk management gurus whose models fail to predict the rare event that happens all too frequently... what you expect to happen in a century happens every five years.

Seriously let's stop with the linear thinking because if Paul finishes first in Iowa and does fairly well in New Hampshire there might be some positive chaos in the future.

Chances of Paul becoming president > Chances of Brady getting into Harvard

Brady:

Why do you even like Romney? What is your rationale for supporting him beyond a "he can win" argument?

My first choice is Huntsman also, actually, because he's legit on the issues and has been extremely consistent.

With that said, I feel like you're projecting your own thoughts and desires onto Romney. That's a bunch of fluff that doesn't really match up to how he's campaigning and positioning himself on the issues.

I agree with Eddie. We need to blow the system up and start over.

Somehow... this clearly comes to mind...

Eddie, they have already laid a contingency plan for a Paul victory in Iowa and/or New Hampshire. Although there is a media obsession with prolonging the Republican nomination cycle, they still bring neocons or some political insider to dismiss from "authority" that Ron Paul can win. Lately, given the poll numbers- they have adopted a new strategy- they claim that Iowa and New Hampshire do not have great track records in selecting the nominee. Ultimately, they are defusing the bomb in case it explodes. See, IA and NH are important if Gingrich or Romney win, but they are unimportant if Paul wins (his supporters are extremely passionate and mess with the numbers, etc.). So, the caucuses' importance is contingent on its outcome and is not independent of its results. Now, if you are unbiased, this is blatant hypocrisy- but we are taking about the lowest common denominator, the marginal voter, and he/she doesn't pay that much attention. The media has decided this is a two-person race (although the precise two people keeps changing) and they will specifically exclude Ron Paul (some of them still mention Huntsman, for goodness sake). Ever notice that every time Ron Paul is mentioned with respect to the Republican nomination, from print to video media, the writer or anchor (or guest) seems to think it necessary to insist that Ron Paul has no chance? They always say it in an offhand, but emphatic tone. I think we all know what that demonstrates. If its so obvious, why do they feel the need to mention it every time?

Republicans hate him because he exposes the hypocrisy and inconsistency in their current mainstream platform- We want small government that stays out of my life and respect my individual liberties, but erect a police state via the National Defense Authorization Act, passed yesterday, that can indefinitely detain Americans without charge or representation and spend hundreds of billions blowing things up all over the world. Liberals hate him because they want an opponent they can call a "theocratic fascist" and convince their base and moderate liberals that "the other guy" wants to take all their civil liberties away. But Dr. Paul is a far stronger defender of civil liberties than Obama or any elected liberal (including Kucinich). Can you imagine President Obama having to defend his civil liberties record against Ron Paul? And the typical argument don't work (he's not inconsistent, he's not anti-(insert minority group here), he's not a war monger, etc.) That's the scariest possible opponent the liberals would want (in my understanding).

In sum, the Republicans, Democrats, and media are engines of demagoguery- and reasoned arguments have no place on the same stage. And they will do whatever is in their power to keep it that way. It's funny. People complain about how things are getting worse and the insiders never change. But when someone shows up to fix things, they do everything they can to marginalize him or her. Do not underestimate the media or the political elite's disdain for Ron Paul. For now, it lies in the realm of plausible deniability. If pushed, they will resort to more direct methods.

Get ya money in...the Ron Paul train is leaving the station...and picking up speed.

Ron Paul 2012 Campaign Contribution

https://secure.ronpaul2012.com/

Oh and by the way our Commander and Chief broke his promise to veto The NDAA and allowing indefinite detention of Americans. Your word means nothing when your from Chicagoland.

.

rls for the win. Great post, absolute truth, and wonderfully articulated.

If Ron Paul was 20 years younger and 6 foot BAM he would win it hands down.

The Bilderberg group won't allow him to win.

He's definitely starting to scare the elites, because the hit pieces have begun:

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2011/12/news-bulletin-ron-paul-is-a-huge-r…

That's a good sign.

Bingo. Why is that the government's job?

How have federal politicians EVER made ANYTHING better over the past 50 years? How does the government make things better, for that matter? (Besides the post office, national parks, state schools, and contract enforcement.)

i think the people are coming around and putting aside RP's un-demagogic rhetorical style, ill-fitting suits and run-on sentences to appreciate his message. at least i hope.

in a one-on-one debate with obama RP would annihilate him. though you can never go broke underestimating the intellect of the electorate. everyone who listened to nixon v. kennedy thought tricky dick won but everyone who watched thought that the jfk won.

I hope Ron Paul takes this whole fucking thing. Out of all of the candidates, he is the only one who truly cares about trying to maximize the personal liberty of individuals. Plus, this is a last hurrah for him...I doubt he would care about appeasing whatever party endorses him if he won.

Put him up there with Obama. I don't care if he looks as uncomfortable as Forrest Gump getting a handjob. As long as the point comes out...his logic is unfuckingdeniable. He's the most consistent and honest man in this campaign and if people'd rather vote for a smooth talking hypocrite who can't even uphold the promises he made to his own party...then they'll get the America they deserve.

Reconciling our differences and coming together to create an economic environment for long term sustainability sounds great, but the idea lacks when it comes to execution. If we wanted to achieve this objective, then naturally our first question should be...well, just HOW are we gonna go about that? Naturally, there will be a disagreement about how to go forward and the competing ideologies presented in the argument will both conclude that if they are right, then the other guy has got to be wrong.

So now we're at a crossroads and it begs the question...how can you submit to an ideology for which you believe to be inherently wrong? Furthermore, add the dynamic that your career is on the line with your constituents who back your particular ideology because anything BUT ardently fighting for your position is considered a cop out and will probably lose you your job in the next election. For example, even if a Republican were to change his mind by ideologically backing the health-care mandate on some utilitarian principle, the party is going to destroy him in the next election.

When people ask, "Why can't Republicans and Democrats get along?", I think, "Why haven't North Korea and South Korea reunited?" It's because sometimes...you just can't reconcile between two ideologies that are diametrically opposed to each other. A person who strongly believes in non-violence is never going to make a concession by voting yes for the death penalty just like a fiscal conservative is never going to make a concession by voting yes to pass a bill that increases the deficit and effectively leaves the country in an even more dire financial condition. Especially in a public forum where flip-flopping will get you ostracized...

If you concede your free market stance on some bill by gaining some social benefit, (such as restricting the death penalty for example) it doesn't mean that society is any more benefited. Republicans and Democrats will not come together to negotiate what is right/wrong or what is best for the country, the only thing they will negotiate on is what is in their best immediate interest.

Ron Paul just seems like the only guy with any sense. Right and wrong is not determined by party, but by fundamental principles...like staying the fuck out of peoples personal lives.

.

Obama got lucky. Hillary was the chosen Democrat. The nation would have voted for a chicken if it ran on the Democrat's ticket. Obama lucked out and got the nomination and parroted "hope and change" like a pull string doll.

dennis kucinich would have been hope and change for the dems. obama is just another neocon/international financial mafia pet.

In regards to Ron Paul's chances of winning Iowa, I think they are quite good. No other candidate has an event like Christmas with Ron Paul, which will involve 250 students (myself included) cranking it out before the caucus. Rand will be there on January 1st, which should help pull the Tea Party vote.

There's also a chance that I could get a full-time job offer after this. Would that be worth dropping out of classes for?

Ron Paul has said it himself: he judges his success by the promotion and advancement of libertarianism. I'm dubious as to anyone who tries to predict what would happen if Paul won Iowa and/or NH, in terms of getting the nomination or winning the Presidency. I don't understand the Paul v Obama polls, which show him worse than many others even though he beats the rest of the GOP with independents. What I'm hoping for is that libertarianism becomes the core of the GOP; so that all future politics are essentially between libertarians and statists. You can see how successful he has been already (all the GOP talked about last election cycle was further reducing civil rights), with Rick Perry (who was once touted as the only anti-Romney with a chance) adopting Paulite views on major issues.

I just hope that those of us who haven't contributed or become supportive (instead opting for someone more electable) because of the belief that he can't win will be swayed by his strong polling, which is incredible considering the radical nature of his message.