PPP 2016 GOP Poll - Iowa (May '14)

[klamath]

I'm all for it, and have said the campaign failed to do that in a good way. Fewer voters than Rick Santorum, AND Newt Gingrich I think backs up my claim on that. Despite raising more money than both of them, Ron Paul 2012 couldn't take the man with the most conservative, Constitutional, record, and win a single state's popular vote?

And no, Ron Paul 2012 never produced a Romney only attack ad, like they did for Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum, even Rick Perry:





And Ron Paul is the one that setup with Disney investors the Ron Paul Channel, that started as a subscription service. Not sure if it still is? I just follow the dots, and make conclusions based on facts/history/actions.

I have said if Ron Paul 2012 was serious about waking more people up, they could have done so by producing ads that addressed actual issues, instead of producing ads to help Mitt Romney win the nomination.
Perfect example. When Mitt Romney's campaign was getting pummeled over one of his advisor's talking about resetting for the General Election, "like an Etch-A-Sketch", Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich of course used it to attack Mitt Romney directly. Why? They were trying to win it.
What did Ron Paul 2012 do with that? Use it to attack Mitt Romney? No, they used clips of Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich, and produced an ad that was effectively defending Mitt Romney and making fun of the other two:


And here is the Ron Paul 2012 not attacking Mitt Romney, because they were afraid of being attacked by Mitt Romney's campaign:


I'm surprised you aren't aware of any of this. You do know Ron Paul 2012 didn't run one single ad to even try and let Virginia voters know Ron Paul was serious about winning? But, Ron Paul 2012 spent at least $100K running Rick Santorum attack ads in Michigan, helping Mitt Romney win that state.

So, this:


Holds no water at all. You can't claim the strategy was to weed out the rest of the field, AND go for a brokered convention. And you can't claim the opinion was to make it a Romney vs. Paul strategy, because the campaign didn't run one single positive/negative TV ad in Virginia on Super Tuesday. Virginia was the first one-vs-one state, with ONLY Mitt Romney and Ron Paul on the ballot, AND with delegates up for grabs.

Ron Paul 2012 didn't spend ONE dime on ads in Virginia. Not one. This "opinion" of trying to make the race Ron Paul vs. Mitt Romney holds about as long as Congress does to a balanced budget these days.

You have valid points however this is about Rand. We have beat the downfalls of the RP campaign to death. Rehashing this is badly derailing this thread. We need to move forward.

 

[mosquitobite]

Then we're fucked. He endorsed Romney, says drugs shouldn't be legalized, says an attack on Israel is an attack on the US... There are many more I could list and all of them have been a turn-off to the the Ron Paul base while being promoted to us as part of the game to attract more mainstream Republicans. "We" have been fractured by Rand's actions. It makes sense to many of us (including myself) why he did it but if you think moneybombs on this site and the delegate strategy is going to win Rand the nomination, you are delusional.

It's also past the point of chatting on the internet.

It's time we are ALL precinct commmittee folk and delegates. it's time to suck it up ane make your name & face known to your local (city/county) GOP. it's time to put your feet on the street. it is time to build a network of other like minds in your county. (If you would like to learn some ideas on how - pm me)

If you (general you) keep waiting for someone else to fix this country - at this point you're just as much of the problem as any RINO.

 

[malkusm]

Losing Iowa or doing really bad in Iowa makes it much harder to win New Hampshire. Momentum is important.

Oh yeah, like when John McCain was doomed after he finished 4th in 2008 with 13% of the vote.

Hey wait a minute...

EDIT: Wow didn't see that this thread was 6 pages and apparently has little to do with Rand's polling in Iowa for 2016. You kids have fun.

 

[Brett85]

Oh yeah, like when John McCain was doomed after he finished 4th in 2008 with 13% of the vote.

Hey wait a minute...

EDIT: Wow didn't see that this thread was 6 pages and apparently has little to do with Rand's polling in Iowa for 2016. You kids have fun.

John McCain had run for President before and had won primaries. He was the runner up in 2000. You're comparing apples to oranges. People are just going to keep making excuses if more polls like this keep coming out, rather than recognizing there's a problem that needs to be fixed.

 

[malkusm]

John McCain had run for President before and had won primaries. He was the runner up in 2000. You're comparing apples to oranges. People are just going to keep making excuses if more polls like this keep coming out, rather than recognizing there's a problem that needs to be fixed.

I understand the concern, but my point is that Iowa and New Hampshire rarely go to the same candidate, as they care about very different issues and have very different demographics. Jon Huntsman finished 3rd in New Hampshire last time around after getting essentially zero votes in Iowa. Jon Huntsman had never run for President before, nor won primaries.

Actually it's more the exception than the rule in recent history that both states go to the same candidate, so I'm not sure why you're correlating them.

 

[Brett85]

I understand the concern, but my point is that Iowa and New Hampshire rarely go to the same candidate, as they care about very different issues and have very different demographics. Jon Huntsman finished 3rd in New Hampshire last time around after getting essentially zero votes in Iowa. Jon Huntsman had never run for President before, nor won primaries.

Actually it's more the exception than the rule in recent history that both states go to the same candidate, so I'm not sure why you're correlating them.

Romney won Iowa in 2012 on election night and then went on to win New Hampshire. It wasn't until later that they found out that Rick Santorum had actually won. But it didn't matter, because Romney already had the momentum from winning Iowa on the night the votes were counted. So the statistic of past GOP Presidential nominees only winning one of the two first states is somewhat misleading.

 

[malkusm]

Romney won Iowa in 2012 on election night and then went on to win New Hampshire. It wasn't until later that they found out that Rick Santorum had actually won. But it didn't matter, because Romney already had the momentum from winning Iowa on the night the votes were counted. So the statistic of past GOP Presidential nominees only winning one of the two first states is somewhat misleading.

I remember 2012 and recall it being reported more as essentially a 3-way tie between Romney, Santorum and Paul (with Romney and Santorum getting most of the press because, you know, the media). I'm just saying that we shouldn't be hand-wringing over losing New Hampshire based on a 4-point swing in an Iowa poll with a 5.2% MOE more than 18 months prior to the election. Trying to determine Paul's next PR move based on thin causalities chained together is reactive and not wise.

 

[Brett85]

I remember 2012 and recall it being reported more as essentially a 3-way tie between Romney, Santorum and Paul (with Romney and Santorum getting most of the press because, you know, the media).

I remember them pretty much ignoring Ron.

 

[klamath]

Romney won Iowa in 2012 on election night and then went on to win New Hampshire. It wasn't until later that they found out that Rick Santorum had actually won. But it didn't matter, because Romney already had the momentum from winning Iowa on the night the votes were counted. So the statistic of past GOP Presidential nominees only winning one of the two first states is somewhat misleading.

Santorum got way more of a momentum boost from his close second place finish than Romney did with his first place, at the time, win. It didn't help him because he pandered to the deep socons and therefore had no chance in NH. NH is far more important. Let the media get one sound bit of Rand trying to out do cruz or Huckabee on antiabortion that comes across like "legitimate rape" and the media will play it every hour on the hour the full week before NH and Rand is sunk. Rand hopefully learned his lesson on the civil rights act. Nothing he said or those senate candidates said was wrong but a sound bit out of context can be used by the media with devastation.

 

[Uriah]

The point of a presidential campaign, is to win the nomination. When Ron Paul 2012 agreed to not attack Mitt Romney, it ceased being a presidential campaign. AND, it didn't tell supporters of that information, until at/after the RNC.
So, from at least February 2012, Ron Paul 2012 wasted MILLIONS of dollars and THOUSANDS of hours of supporters. For what?
Did they produce one single good ad addressing foreign policy? In a way that could address the issue to the idiot brain-dead type voters in certain states? And air it repeatedly in those states to help Rand in 2016 on that issue? No.
What about ACTUALLY addressing the newsletters, and throwing the writer of them under the bus? No? It will be brought up against Rand in 2016, we already have proof of that, as it was used against a candidate in another state. As a matter of fact, the ad used against the other candidate, LOOKED like it was made for the 2012 election cycle, and redone with another candidate, as to not be wasted.

And if you want to play the "media bias" card, do you expect ANY difference in 2016? It's to be expected, not used as an excuse for campaign incompetence and dishonesty.
Rick Santorum dropped out of the race on April 10th, before several other states even voted.

So, what part was wasted? The millions raised/spent after they agreed to not attack Mitt Romney, and instead, based on their own actions, helped him win the nomination. Name recognition doesn't mean crap, if you aren't winning. Which, is the point of politics. Winning. Unless, you have some ulterior motive for running, that does not actually mean winning. Like, furthering your own financial goals.

Romney was ready with a smear campaign so Paul didn't go on the attack. If you think people don't pay attention to Paul now he or his son wouldn't even be on the political radar if Romney dumped millions in a smear campaign. Lies that are repeated over and over again soon enough become truth to people that don't know any better. Team Paul made a long term strategic decision. Was it good for his campaign well, that's only speculation. It sucks but it will be what it is. Politics is politics.

 

[Rocco]

Sigh, the fact that a freaking moderator of all people got roped into this pissing contest really speaks to the deteriorating quality of the mod team around here....

It's not that freaking hard, get trolls out of Rand's subforum. The requests have been made to actually enforce this rule repeatedly.

 

[nayjevin]

Sigh, the fact that a freaking moderator of all people got roped into this pissing contest really speaks to the deteriorating quality of the mod team around here....

It's not that freaking hard, get trolls out of Rand's subforum. The requests have been made to actually enforce this rule repeatedly.

You also said:

Seriously, this whole thread has been a frustrating parade of fan girls who seem to be hellbent on denying reality.

But you haven't reported a post. Seems like the whole thing is bothering you alot, and you might not be alone, but I didn't have the impression the thread was frustrating people. I don't feel I got roped, nor that it's a pissing contest. Please constructively criticize my moderator actions whenever you feel the need. But don't slight the entire team, most of whom have probably not read this thread. Also note that we don't generally take action in threads in which we are a part of the discussion. So criticism of my inaction here is not warranted.

If you think you see trolling, report it. If you think a moderator's action or inaction is not in line with guidelines, report it. Don't make a blanket statement about people being trolls. I don't see anyone that should be out of the Rand forum at this point. But if you report a post, then all moderators, even the ones not in this thread, will be sure to give it a look.

Criticism is okay - it should be based on facts. Those who don't show a repeated pattern of derailing threads, fostering negativity, and making general, non-fact based, negative comments are welcome to voice opinions that are not popular. Sometimes the Rand forum won't be the place for that though. There is no perfect solution.

 

[mosquitobite]

It's also past the point of chatting on the internet.

It's time we are ALL precinct commmittee folk and delegates. it's time to suck it up ane make your name & face known to your local (city/county) GOP. it's time to put your feet on the street. it is time to build a network of other like minds in your county. (If you would like to learn some ideas on how - pm me)

If you (general you) keep waiting for someone else to fix this country - at this point you're just as much of the problem as any RINO.

We're never going to change the world by standing still.

 

[FriedChicken]

Sigh, the fact that a freaking moderator of all people got roped into this pissing contest really speaks to the deteriorating quality of the mod team around here....

It's not that freaking hard, get trolls out of Rand's subforum. The requests have been made to actually enforce this rule repeatedly.

Who are you referring to as a troll, specifically? I'm just curious. I've seen TC go to bat for Rand a few times (don't have a link to the conversations, just going off memory).
JJdoyle is passionate about the Ron Paul debates and is can get in a rut on those topics but in other circumstances he is good with electoral strategy and someone who should be listened to on those topics.

I haven't read every page. So I know I'm missing stuff.
But I don't think I'd classify much here as trolling.

If anything the huge derailment to Ron's campaign shortcomings was a trollish move but, since the main topic here is electability as it relates to Iowa ... even that isn't completely irrelevant, even if overblown.

 

[ssunlimited]

So here is a question that is slightly off-topic: Why did in Texas Ron Paul lose his own representative district that he kept won for like over 20 years to Mitt Romney?

 

[CPUd]

So here is a question that is slightly off-topic: Why did in Texas Ron Paul lose his own representative district that he kept won for like over 20 years to Mitt Romney?

I think for 2012, they gerrymandered his CD.

Also, by then, a lot of people thought he had dropped out. The campaign previously said they were going to spend a lot of money in TX.

 

[PowerOfLiberty]

Huckabee is going to be extremely hard to beat in Iowa, perhaps impossible.

I agree, but Huckabee might not run.

 

[ssunlimited]

Sigh, the fact that a freaking moderator of all people got roped into this pissing contest really speaks to the deteriorating quality of the mod team around here....

It's not that freaking hard, get trolls out of Rand's subforum. The requests have been made to actually enforce this rule repeatedly.

I've been following this thread and haven't detected a single troll. Try going to places that are not moderated such as Yahoo! Answers (answers.yahoo.com) and omegle.com to talk about politics or other things such as religion.

 

[FriedChicken]

I agree, but Huckabee might not run.

No, he might not.
I hope he doesn't - but I think, at the moment anyway, the odds are that he IS going to run. But I'm not saying that with any type of certainty.

I just think the only way a non-establishment person is going to take the nomination is if the tea party, conservatives and libertarians unify early on with a single candidate.
All the above are willing to unify on Rand but there are plenty of other candidates who could get in the way. All the conservative pundits keep saying "we need to look at the conservative governors" and never mention Rand.

If Rand took the first two states I think the alliance is possible and I really don't see any candidate that isn't establishment (not just liberty, but not establishment) that could do it.
Rand stands the best chance if it becomes "Rand vs. Bush (or whoever)" early on.

If another "tea party" or "conservative" won Iowa, then Rand won NH. Those two candidates would be splitting the conservative vote in other contests meanwhile the establishment will probably be fully unified behind their guy.

 

[asurfaholic]

Nb4 another pollster comes out with Iowa poll showing completely different results