New Hampshire: "3rd place or die" for Ron Paul

jasonoliver

Banned
Joined
Dec 5, 2007
Messages
386
Seriously.

If Ron Paul cannot at least eek out 3rd place in the most libertarian state in America - all hope is lost. The answer will come today on whether there is any chance left. If Ron Paul got 1st there is a chance that he could become the nominee. If he places second he has a remote chance. If he places 3rd he still has a very remote chance.

Michigan is going to go Romney because of his father.
Nevada is going to go Romeny because of Mormons.
South Carolina is going to go Huckabee with its high Fundie population.
Florida is going to go Huckabee or Giuliani.

Super Tuesday is going to one of those who do well in early states.
 
Super Tuesday is our firewall, not NH. Getting double digits in the early states will be respectable enough for us to continue on to 2/5.
 
What is with this type of attitude?

All hope is lost?

Regardless if he gets the nomination, he is injecting issues into the debate. Notice how other candidates are talking about the inflation and the constitution now.

Ron Paul will go all the way to the convention. It's not JUST about winning the nomination. It's ALSO about instigating the American SPIRIT and getting people involved in saving their country.

Everyone needs to stop whining. A defeatist never accomplished anything but defeat.
 
Just because they have that slogan doesn't mean the people are actually like that.
 
aspiring is right.

NH is not some crazy critical thinking bulwark.

They are media fed and pampered based on their early vote status.

We have a much better chance in other more down to earth states and the south.
 
We are very strong in Nevada (Mormons are in Utah, not Nevada!). Stop with these negative threads!!!
 
I agree that Dr. Paul should be able to do better here than in Iowa. With that said, let's stop making absolute statements about what must or must not happen in order for us to move forward.

Elections are all about the momentum so if we do better than expected it's going to increase our chances of doing well in later states (and decrease the chances of other candidates of doing well).
 
No it's not! Ron Paul still has a boat load of money while candidates like McCain, Huckabee, and Fred Thompson are broke! What we need to do in these early states is to convince the voters on super tuesday that we can win, or at least do well. If Paul places third or fourth in NH that's an improvement over Iowa. We just need to keep improving and possibly win NV. If we can do this we definately have the money to compete on super Tuesday while candidates like the ones I mentioned will not have the money to compete. That's my story and I'm sticking to it!
 
Seriously.

If Ron Paul cannot at least eek out 3rd place in the most libertarian state in America - all hope is lost. The answer will come today on whether there is any chance left. If Ron Paul got 1st there is a chance that he could become the nominee. If he places second he has a remote chance. If he places 3rd he still has a very remote chance.

Michigan is going to go Romney because of his father.
Nevada is going to go Romeny because of Mormons.
South Carolina is going to go Huckabee with its high Fundie population.
Florida is going to go Huckabee or Giuliani.

Super Tuesday is going to one of those who do well in early states.

Pathetic.

All hope is lost when he quits, and the Libertarians stop running candidates.

Before that day comes, you at least get your ass out to the polls and support these people, election after election, instead of scurrying over to the Republicans to save the country from the Clintons.

Had you guys been doing this all along, there would have been steady growth in the freedom movement, instead of the pitiful support and the selling out it's been suffering through.

If we muster 10% this time, we shoot for 15% next time, instead of crying about the hopelessness of it all and wondering why nobody else has been doing what we haven't been doing, either.

Don't you think that our abandonment of Ron Paul in 1988 might have had something to do with his reluctance to run again until now?
 
Last edited:
It's ok to be negative at this point. The NH primaries are almost over.

It's time to be realistic.

And how should our actions change, in light of this newfound realism?

I don't know what the hell your motive is.
 
The only president in history to not win either the New Hampshire Primary or the Iowa Caucus is Bill Clinton in 1992. He took 2nd in NH and 3rd in Iowa.

It would be unprecedented if Ron Paul took 5th in Iowa and 3rd or worse in New Hampshire and went on to become President.

The early primary states are an important gauge of public opinion and voter sentiment. They set a precedent, the value of which far outweighs the number of convention delegates earned through the primary process itself.
 
Back
Top