Ron Paul Surges to 24% in New Hampshire, Gaining on Romney

[Back In Black]

The system won't let him beat Romney in anything.

 

[pmbug]

Let's hope so, as it is his last tiny shot at the nomination. Lose NH and it is OVER!

Strongly disagree. Paul is set to battle Romney to the wire for delegates at the convention. If there is a credible "anti-Romney and not Ron Paul" candidate still standing at that point, this may well be a brokered convention (because no candidate gets enough delegates to win outright).

Paul may yet end up with more delegates than Romney in Iowa. Virginia looks to be a winner take all battle between Paul and Romney. There is a lot left to be decided.

 

[klamath]

Strongly disagree. Paul is set to battle Romney to the wire for delegates at the convention. If there is a credible "anti-Romney and not Ron Paul" candidate still standing at that point, this may well be a brokered convention (because no candidate gets enough delegates to win outright).

Paul may yet end up with more delegates than Romney in Iowa. Virginia looks to be a winner take all battle between Paul and Romney. There is a lot left to be decided.

Nope. After Nh cames SC. without a a win in NH SC is impossible as well as florida. Romney will do real well in nevada as well because of the huge mormon population. He will have wrapped up victories in EVERY region of the country. RP may win some tiny states after everyone except Romney and him have dropped out. Montana, alaska maybe. I have been following electoral politics way too long to get delusional enough to think RP can pull off a victory without winning a majority of the states. Even with the republican system moving closer to the democratic delegate selection system it will never happen.

 

[klamath]

That's not true, this is just a perception that most of the public believes so it makes it harder but the truth is this is going to be a primary like we've never seen in recent history. Before IA and NH were so important (pre 1970's) it was a different game and right now I think we're seeing a similar issue. One of the main reasons I believe this is because I think we have seen evidence of a serious wall in Romney support, and that makes for an interesting situation.

All I can say to you is name ONE evential nominee since 1976 that has won without winning al least one of the first two states?

 

[chudrockz]

All I can say to you is name ONE evential nominee since 1976 that has won without winning al least one of the first two states?

So, are you saying that we should just give up? Just get ready for a general with Obama vs Obama(Romney) and write Ron Paul in? I'm not there.

 

[NoPants]

All I can say to you is name ONE evential nominee since 1976 that has won without winning al least one of the first two states?

Why would that be relevant? I just said I think this will resemble a primary BEFORE 1976. One where IA and NH are not essential.

 

[klamath]

So, are you saying that we should just give up? Just get ready for a general with Obama vs Obama(Romney) and write Ron Paul in? I'm not there.

Nope after a lost in NH it strictly becomes a coalition building campaign. By the convention RP could have easily converted 30 percent of the republican electorate. 30% he can hand off to Rand in 16 to build into 51%. Looks to me Obama is going to cruse to reelection this year.

 

[klamath]

Why would that be relevant? I just said I think this will resemble a primary BEFORE 1976. One where IA and NH are not essential.

You are completely out of reality.

 

[hillbilly123069]

You obviously didn't see the Black Box voting vids from 2008. There was blatent fraud. It was documented. Not a dam thing was done about it. WE need to make sure it doesn't happen again. Even if it means opening some whupass.

 

[Peace&Freedom]

All I can say to you is name ONE evential nominee since 1976 that has won without winning al least one of the first two states?

Yes, you have history on your side, but you do not have the present on your side. The present facts are the GOP changed the rules after 2008, weakening the impact of the early contests because the delegate pickup is now mostly proportional (it will be impossible for any candidate to quickly build up an insurmountable lead). The other present fact is that the current poll shows Ron Paul is surging (which, by the standard the media set only 5 days ago for Santorum, should mean he gets much more coverage).

All we need is for Paul to continue to surge to say 28%, and for Romney to drop 6-8% of his lead (say down to 31%), and all of a sudden, it's statistically tied up. This will be the most dramatic test of the overall theory that Romney's appeal has a ceiling of 25-30% among Republicans. If he can only squeak out a win with Paul showing a strong second, coupled with a poor showing by Newt and (especially) Santorum, that may be enough to establish Paul as THE viable alternative to Mitt, and to show Romney is not inevitable. Remember, for some reason, it was Bill Clinton's second place finish in NH that propelled him to the nomination.

If Paul gets vote totals in the mid 20s AGAIN, it will be difficult for the media to still claim he appeals only to 10% of the GOP. With Santorum stalling out in NH, evangelicals in SC may take the cue and latch onto Paul. Instead of going into SC with Newt and Santorum splitting the evangelical/social conservative vote so that Romney prevails, it could be Newt and Mitt ending up splitting the ESTABLISHMENT vote, providing safe passage for Paul to get past both of them. But Ron does need a strong push coming out of NH.

 

[NoPants]

All I can say to you is name ONE evential nominee since 1976 that has won without winning al least one of the first two states?

And, just for a little historical background (post 1976 )

As for that third place finish — the candidate who secures that spot will be in good company. Three former third place finishers have gone on to win their party’s nomination, and two have gone on to become President; Bill Clinton placed third in 1992, as did both of the eventual nominees in 1988- George H.W.Bush and former Massachusetts Gov. Michael Dukakis. (Interestingly enough, George H.W. Bush finished first in Iowa when he ran against Ronald Reagan in 1980.)

Source: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/12/iowa-caucuses-the-historical-importance-of-victory/

Bazzinga!

Quit if you want, but I say there's more work to be done and don't let comments like "but it hasn't been done since 1976" make up my mind for me. This primary will have plenty of twists and turns. It won't be following the "rules" is my bet.

 

[tmg19103]

One thing I learned last election is these polls are not off by much.

RP did not do well in NH last time, but last time NH chose McCain as the anti-Romney.

Romney will be tough to beat, but a close second (and dreams of a win) will really solidify RP.

I think those in NH see RP as the best choice as the anti-Romney.

They won't go for Frothy or the Grinch much at all.

Let's hope RP keeps climbing in NH polls.

 

[klamath]

And, just for a little historical background (post 1976 )



Bazzinga!

Quit if you want, but I say there's more work to be done and don't let comments like "but it hasn't been done since 1976" make up my mind for me. This primary will have plenty of twists and turns. It won't be following the "rules" is my bet.

What you quoted was wrong. Clinton finished second in NH in 92 then moved on to his strong area, the South. The south is NOT RP's strong area. The north and west are. If he cannot pull off any victory in his strong areas it is over.

 

[vechorik]

I'll be on the phone this afternoon and all weekend to NH for voter ID.

Yes, everyone says Ron Paul can't win, but each vote moves him closer to the top and that's my goal....to do the best we can!

 

[Peace&Freedom]

Well let's see how many evangelicals Paul can get now that the credible field is thinning out. He has already shown he has significant appeal to them, being their second choice in IA. The south may be 'stuck' with settling on Paul in the absence of a viable Perry, Gingrich or Santorum candidacy. Again, under the new primary rules 'winning' upfront is not as crucial delegate-wise as in previous cycles. The primaries were once a sprint race (winner take all contests through Super Tuesday) followed by the marathon (the rest of the states). Now it is the reverse---so sprinting upfront will not put one in an unbeatable position.

 

[NoPants]

What you quoted was wrong. Clinton finished second in NH in 92 then moved on to his strong area, the South. The south is NOT RP's strong area. The north and west are. If he cannot pull off any victory in his strong areas it is over.

Really??? Looks like 3rd to me. Maybe that's because I was quoting Iowa, not NH.

Iowa Democratic Presidential Caucus Results – 1992

1) 77.24% - Tom Harkin
2) 4.27% - Paul Tsongas
3) 2.54% - Bill Clinton

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iowa_Democratic_caucuses,_1992

 

[Ssd]

Its a good number but things are changing daily and CNN is hoping for another Santorum surge.