I guess one question I have is why HQ keeps ignoring states.
To what end are they doing this? Where are the resources going? If he's not campaigning in Michigan for example what was he doing instead? Has he been campaigning in Nevada this entire time? I don't understand the overall strategy here.
I think it's a combination of things. Michigan for example I read is winner-takes-all so going all in to come second is silly.
Had he done well in NH or Iowa the media would have ignored it/said a fluke/indy voters etc. - plus they don't get many delegates.
Simple cost vs reward situation.
Plus he could have blown the $20m in NH and not won - look at Romney in those first two states. And heightened expectations in states where the establishment candidates are well established with many friends to call on would be unwise.
I think Ron was hoping for 3rd in one of them but we narrowly missed out.
However in real votes we're now beating Benito and Fred easily.
I think we do need some kind of "break-out" results soon, even a third, but have no idea how much spending is going on in super-tuesday states.
One thing we can say for certain - the neo-con candidates have all blown serious money and not one could make any serious claim to being a front-runner. And if a few drop out soon it will, I think, bring a natural focus onto Ron, especially during debates etc. Currently he is easy to exclude/laugh at as the odd man out vs 5 power hungry war-mongers.
However if it ends up just Ron vs McCain and Huck say it should become more obvious how superior a candidate he is.
It's a risky, rope-a-dope strategy. Ron has pulled it off a good few times in Texas. The question is will it work nationwide where people obsess over momentum etc. I don't know the answer. I think we would be in big trouble if any one candidate had won everything so far. As it is, it's all mixed up and this gives us the best shot.
