Ron Paul, Buchanan, and Iowa.

[PaleoForPaul]

In the past 28 years, there have been four times there was a 'challenge' in Iowa (ie, not just an incumbent running). These are the results:

2000- George W. Bush* (41%) Steve Forbes (30%), Alan Keyes (14%), Gary Bauer (9%), John McCain (5%) and Orrin Hatch (1%)

1996- Bob Dole* (26%) Pat Buchanan (23%), Lamar Alexander (18%), Steve Forbes (10%), Phil Gramm (9%), Alan Keyes (7%), Richard Lugar (4%) and Maurice Taylor (1%)

1988- Bob Dole (37%) Pat Robertson (25%), George H. W. Bush* (19%), Jack Kemp (11%) and Pete DuPont (7%)

1980- George H. W. Bush (32%) Ronald Reagan* (30%), Howard Baker (15%), John Connally (9%), Phil Crane (7%), John B. Anderson (4%) and Bob Dole (2%)

So only two of four races predicted the correct nominee. Buchanan's strong showing in 1996 is a good sign for us.

What doesn't bode well is how the whole playbook being run against Ron Paul is the same one that Buchanan faced in 1996. All of the polls had him hopelessly low (8-9% in Iowa IIRC), then he came out at 23%, along with many supporters claiming voter fraud against Buchanan.

If anyone is interested, here is a whole bunch of stuff about primary fraud from back then. I think it's been posted here before:

http://www.networkamerica.org/archive.htm

 

[Perry]

Thanks.

 

[hueylong]

Buchanan didn't have our money. Or our ability to grow the revolutionary base (and hence, more money).

Different situation...

Huey

 

[nate895]

Dang, Bob Dole really wanted to be President.

 

[hawks4ronpaul]

It is embarrassing for Bush that he was the incumbent VP of the Reagan ticket in 1988 and lost to both Dole and Pat Robertson.

http://hawks4ronpaul.blogspot.com/

 

[PaleoForPaul]

Buchanan didn't have our money. Or our ability to grow the revolutionary base (and hence, more money).

Different situation...

Huey

I don't recall the money situation in 1996. I do recall his support online, but there simply weren't as many people online 11 years ago to reach out to.

I do think things are very different, so much has changed since then. It does help however, to look at the past as an indicator of the future.

I also think it's good to realize that Buchanan was written off as polling in the single digits by the mainstream media, then got 23% of the vote.

 

[Minuteman2008]

I don't recall the money situation in 1996. I do recall his support online, but there simply weren't as many people online 11 years ago to reach out to.

I do think things are very different, so much has changed since then. It does help however, to look at the past as an indicator of the future.

I also think it's good to realize that Buchanan was written off as polling in the single digits by the mainstream media, then got 23% of the vote.

Every time I get depressed about Paul's chances, I read posts like these and have hope again. I'm always telling people how much better off we'd be today if Pat Buchanan had won the election. Now we have another chance.

 

[Gorgy]

Jesus, all this proves is that Iowa shouldn't even have a primary. They're abysmal failures and terrible candidate-pickers. Alan Keyes in double digits?? Pat Robertson nearly getting their nod? What a joke of a state...and here I thought they touted their public schools as supposedly decent. What a crock.