Ron Paul didn't win Iowa but he's in a great position moving forward.

So we wanted Ron Paul to take Iowa, primarily to spite the media and the establishment and also to establish a lot of momentum moving forward as we continue our push towards the nomination.
We didn't win. Pity.

We didn't lose, either.

We leave Iowa with only two fewer delegates than Romney and Santorum and we leave Iowa as an undisputed front runner in the Republican primary.
More over, everyone knows Rick Santorum is going to go down in flames once he leaves bible thumping nation. This man has serious baggage and was part of the 2000-2006 GOP gangster crew that drove the nation into the dirt. The mere fact that this man has Tea Party support is going to soon prove to be a laughable embarrassment to them once they realize who they've voted for and they will find this out over the course of the next week.

Rick Santorum is going to sink like a stone. This leaves Romney and Ron Paul with GOP voters searching for the not-Romney candidate. Of everyone they've experimented with only Ron Paul has withstood the fire and is still standing. We'll finish 2nd in New Hampshire and then head south where Romney the liberal Mormon will not be well received. He is doing horrible in South Carolina, he's doing horrible in Florida, and Ron Paul will take him in places like Texas, California, etc.

I would have said a 3rd place finish would be a deadly blow to Ron Paul had it not panned out like it did. It is basically a tie for first with Ron Paul coming in at a close second. It's also to our advantage that it was Rick Santorum who took the state's popular vote who will no doubt prove to be a Huckabee v2.

Santorum will go down in flames in short order and this will leave the steadfast Ron Paul versus the flip flopping liberal Romney who the Republicans are resisting for the nomination.

I hope the RNC is ready for all the Ron Paul delegates because we're going to pack the house.

I think we're in a very good position.
http://www.businessinsider.com/ron-paul-winner-iowa-caucuses-strategy-201201#ixzz1iSnm7656

 

Past New Hampshire, where Ron Paul clearly has no chance in winning (even with flaws in polls), it will be tough for Ron Paul to put up a fight.

Newt Gingrich will not do anything special in New Hampshire, but in South Carolina and Florida he certainly could. People forget that he went to college in the south, and was a Representative from Georgia. Florida and South Carolina are two places where he could give Romney a real run for his money. Paul may be a middle-of-the-road guy in the rest of the primaries and caucuses. I just don't expect him to do any better than he has done in Iowa.

Santorum will also make a splash in South Carolina. Remember, Mike Huckabee, the evangelical of 2008 did pretty well in that state.

 

Ron Paul is over and will never have a realistic shot at the White House. His possible split, though, could royally hurt the GOP come late 2012.

Paul's contribution, though, will come past his time. Candidates are talking about the Federal Reserve and that's a good sign. Paul will hopefully move the GOP to a libertarian tilt. The GOP is getting slaughtered on social issues in key demographics— 2010 proved their economic view, though, works.

 

I don't think it has proved that it works, but that it is politically relevant. Niether Democrats nor Republicans have proven that their economic views work.

 

My apologies, I meant that it works politically... that it gets votes— not that it improves the economy. Usually it's simple anti-'who is in office', but with an anti-debt message, it will last forever (because God knows that debt isn't going to be reduced with this American voting base).

 

I see Ron Paul winning no early states. He's done if he was intending on being competitive.

 

Since it is no longer a "winner take all" contest, Ron staying up in the primaries but not always winning is a good thing. Ron will probably take the more liberal republican states like NY and CA. He may also take a few other ones. But keeping the closed 2nd or 3rd spot may help when Romney runs into the south and the evangelic Christians shun him to the bottom.

 

I like Ron Paul, he speaks him mind; and that’s a wonderful thing!

 

Exactly why Paul will never be taken seriously. He draws support from the fringe... of both sides. He's toast.

 

Unfortunately, all to often that mind is clouded by dead ideology and misprioritizations of time and energy towards spreading/fighting wild conspiracy theories of non-existent threats while refusing to even consider the real ones as legitimate or valid.

 

That's what you said a couple of days ago.

Keep spinning, Head.

 

What threats is he ignoring? Iran? Iran is zero threat to us. Our government is more of a threat to us than Iran.

 

Iowa was probably stolen, the establishment pulled out of all the stops to defeat Paul.

 

The Littleton Courier, Berlin Reporter, and Coos County Democrat all endorsed Paul for president in the 2012 election.

“Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney has been in the lead for months,” wrote the editors, “but voters still seem desperate for an alternative — there’s always another candidate pulling stronger or almost as strong numbers in the polls. Voters have lost faith in Obama, but they are not sold on Romney to replace him.”

Congressman Ron Paul, however, “has never voted to raise a tax and voted against all of the bailouts that have riled up Tea Partiers and Occupy Wall Streeters alike,” they continued. “His prediction that the United States can no longer afford the economic cost of our overseas commitments makes many Republicans uncomfortable, possibly by the very truth of the assertion. For decades he has been that rare sort of politician who speaks what he believes to be the truth and doesn’t flutter in the wind of public opinion. That could not be said of Obama or Romney.

“Powerful leaders like Franklin Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan change the political landscape,” the editors concluded. “This is what Ron Paul would do for our country and why we support him.”

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread793248/pg1

 

Big banks and big government won Iowa. Keep fighting for liberty! Be proud that our children have waken up to it and that MSM is unable to sway them with their propaganda thanks to the internet.

Keep fighting for liberty
RON PAUL2012

 

Face FACTS. Take the next bus out of lalaland. What Ron Paul did in Iowa was LOSE

Romney picked up 13 delegates. Santorum picked up 12. Paul picked up ZERO, zed, none, wala, zip, bupkus!

Stop living in a dream world. There were 122,255 votes cast. 96,036 voted against Paul.

 

Yea well Romney would be Obama-Lite and once elected we don't know which way he would go but a bigger Government is a safe bet so I don't support him!

 

And 75% voted against the front runner, over? hardly

 

Um, no. Nobody picked up any delegates from yesterday's caucus. It means nothing. Iowa's delegates are decided later at a convention, and Paul has a good ground game in place for that.

But good of you to put your ignorance on display for everyone.

 

In the odd Iowa politics, the delegates are committed to Romney and Santorum, NOW. That it is NOT a binding commitment is how Iowa does things.

To say that no one picked up any delegates IS displaying your ignorance for all. And the OP claimed that Paul had only 2 delegates less than Romney and Santorum. More "BRILLIANCE" from the cement minded Paulists. Paul has accomplished none of his preaching in 76 years and suddenly to the terminally stupid, he is the "Messiah."

Paul is a has been that never was.

 

No delegates have been allocated; yesterday's caucus was little more than a glorified straw poll. You can't spin you way out of this.

But of course, I already told you this. Clearly you aren't a particularly intelligent person, but c'mon...

 

The system gets confusing from state to state. I had it wrong yesterday but here it looks like you have it wrong today.
More over, Ron Paul didn't "lose." He basically came up just shy in a three way tie. The only thing he didn't win was a media frenzy which is fine.
Santorum is going to go down in flames real soon and everyone knows this race is between Romney and Paul.

Now we have more debates with a thinned out herd. Let's see how Santorum and Romney look when Ron Paul will actually be given equal air time.
Ron Paul is far from out of the fight.

 

Paul finished 5th in Iowa in 2008. Now he finished 3rd. But 3 of the 4 that beat him, BEFORE HE DROPPED OUT IN 2008, are not running this year.

 

Ron Paul got double the % he got in '08. Mitt Romney didn't improve at all from '08. So who's doing better?

See....I can spin, too!!

 

I'm no Romney fan so who are you spinning? Paul is not electable. He's older by far than any president ever elected, His record is one of NOTHING but frustrated votes. He has some stances on issues that scare everyone with a functioning brain. He is not articulate. He is not photogenic. Those things SHOULD NOT matter, but they do, that's reality.
But the only real knock I have against him is HE WILL NOT BE ELECTED.

He is a fantasy of idealistic dreaming youth that choose to ignore that he has accomplished nothing in his lifetime. Youth can do that as THEY haven't accomplished anything YET. But Paul doesn't have a YET, he is 76 now, he is the past, not the future.