What most influenced our 5th place finish in Iowa?

[malibu]

Ron won Jefferson County with 35% of the vote.

That is great news, we've got several delegates in Johnson County as well.

southeastern Iowa rocks!

 

[jblosser]

How the heck is voter turnout not an option? From all reports we may well have had the votes ("the demographic"), we didn't get them to the polls. That's arguably the campaign's job first but the grassroots is certainly capable of doing it. I don't plan to wait for them to do it here at home.

 

[thoughtbombing]

Other - Voter Fraud. Nuff Said.

Watch The Cspan Video And You Will See.

 

[jmdrake]

This was Dr. Paul's state to lose. It is the most anti-war of the Republicans state in the country. Non-interventionist, skeptical of entangling alliances, pro-life, anti-tax, pro-gun, etc.

Making excuses for the official campaign staff will only bring more disappointment.

In 2000 the overwhelming majority of caucus voters voted republican. This year the overwhelming majority voted democrat. That's the untold story here. I saw on World News Tonight the other night a woman who have voted for Bush in 2004 that was a precinct captain for Obama. That speaks volumes. Folks say the "young people didn't come out." They did. For Obama. In the republican caucuses only 11 percent of the vote was people 17 - 29. In the democratic caucuses it was 22 percent! Three percent of people who voted democrat were self identified republicans. Obama got 44 percent of those crossover voters. NO democrats voted in the republican primary!

Question? Did Ron Paul run a single anti war ad in Iowa? I'm asking because I don't know. I know he ran the lame "I'm voting for Ron Paul and you should check him out too" ad as well as the misinterpreted "No more student visas from terrorist countries" ad. How about a solid ad that shows democrats (and disgruntled republicans) that Ron Paul is MORE serious about ending the war than Obama or Clinton? Yes that will turn off some war hawk republican voters that aren't going to vote for us anyway! We can't keep assuming we're going to get all of the antiwar vote just because we have the best antiwar candidate.

Regards,

John M. Drake

 

[thoughtbombing]

Obama, Obama, Obama

He is pulling independents and college students with a similar anti-war, change message. I believe more and more (I'm even starting to learn this way) think the Obama train has a better chance of winning and actually making change.

Crock of shit.

 

[IHaveaDream]

For what it's worth, I'd like to say that some of the Youtube videos produced by the grassroots are FAR better than anything I've seen the campaign produce. A lot of us have been very moved by them, and I think a lot more people would too if they could see them.

 

[Voluntaryist]

Iowa is the oldest, most subsidized, most pro-war, most evangelical, least web-connected state in america.

Getting 10% in Iowa is like david beating goliath. We didnt do too bad at all. And we will only do better in every other state.

 

[Voluntaryist]

Old people that watch bill o reilly, and decide that the young should die so they can be old, and watch o reilly.

QFT

 

[Gimpster]

The demographic.

Most people at my causue were one or two issue people.

1.) Abortion.
2.) Gay marriage.

It was obvious to me that the Christians were out in FULL FORCE last night, and unfortunatly the Ron Paul campaign has not addressed their concerns enough ... thus far.

I don't think this scenario plays out in NH, but it could in many other midwest/conservative states.

Many of you might not like the evangelicals, but they come to the polls in droves. Without them, you go NO WHERE in the GOP. That's just how it works right now in this party.

 

[Gimpster]

Jefferson is where a town called Fairfield is.

Very different people there, they're invovled with the Maharishi school of business/meditation etc. They fielded their own candidate a few times, but went no where.

That is great news, we've got several delegates in Johnson County as well.

southeastern Iowa rocks!

 

[Ninja Homer]

I think the biggest problem was the tight polling between Obama, Clinton, and Edwards. Many of the Independent voters who may have voted for Ron Paul saw that tight race, and decided they would rather beat Clinton than support Paul. They voted for the lesser of evils rather than for good.

There were twice as many votes for Obama as there were for Huckabee in Iowa. I think that says a lot more than any of the other stats we'll see from yesterday's caucus.

 

[CelestialRender]

Demographic. And I see that everyone else agrees.

College-heavy East Iowa showed 15% support, with almost no support in rural West Iowa.

This was predictable, and hardly a loss for us. If McThompson had gotten a couple less percent, everyone would be cheering. It's a bit ridiculous, really.

 

[Paulitician]

It's the demographic, stupid!

They're the only ones we can depend on, beside the grassroots which does a terrific job (but perhaps we're wasting too much time on misguided efforts)--certainly not the campaign, because they failed yesterday, whether it was because of incompetency or by mistake; it should never happen again.

Take a look at this:

Stuff like campaign resources and priorities of the issues is what we have to know for every early primary state to make sure Ron Paul can tailor his message effectively and therefore gain the most votes. We can't depend on merely first time voters, democrats and independents (though, granted the independents are essential). It doesn't matter if Iowa was blinded by religious faith; whether they loved their subsidies, whether they love Bush--there is still a way to even persaude them--the most important thing is getting votes. For instance, NH seems like a state for Ron Paul, but he can come dead last if the opposition pours in thousands upon thousands of supporters. It's not quite an ideological battle--it's a strategy and numbers battle.

 

[Gimpster]

Here Here, Paulitician.

If you can glean anything from this, and many-many other threads:

NH is make or break. If we can't poll well in NH, we can't poll well on Super Tuesday, IMO. I think anything less than 1-2-3 finish = effectivly the end of the campaign.

We didn't campaign well for the demographics of Iowa, and I knew that going into my caucus. I think we're more in line with NH, but this is valuable data here.

With 5 days left, there is still time to capture NH.

 

[shadowhooch]

Here Here, Paulitician.

If you can glean anything from this, and many-many other threads:

NH is make or break. If we can't poll well in NH, we can't poll well on Super Tuesday, IMO. I think anything less than 1-2-3 finish = effectivly the end of the campaign.

We didn't campaign well for the demographics of Iowa, and I knew that going into my caucus. I think we're more in line with NH, but this is valuable data here.

With 5 days left, there is still time to capture NH.

Yep, I agree. We have to completely invalidate poll numbers in New Hampshire. We've got to completely BLOW AWAY the 7% he is currently polling there. Otherwise, I don't have much hope.
Ron Paul is not polling above 10% in ANY state. So unless there is some evidence to believe this will change, it doesn't look good.

C'mon New Hampshire. Don't do me wrong. Everyone I know will vote (20+ votes) for Ron Paul on Super Tuesday if they feel he has a chance. But they need the evidence! Give me the ammunition I need to convince them!

 

[Gigaplex]

I think the campaign only wanted to spend enough time, money and effort on Iowa to get third place. Shooting for first or second would have drained everything we have. They miscalculated though about third place. Obviously, with more advertising and other efforts, he could have grabbed another percentage or two and secured third place but I don't think the campaign calculated it correctly. That is all this was: a miscalculation. We had the power to take third but didn't use that power because we didn't think it was necessary and wanted to save it for other states.

If Ron Paul does get elected, it won't change much unless we follow through after that. Congress would need to be changed too and we'd have to have a continued presence in the party. So really, this campaign is about establishing a base and keeping it running into the future.

When the evangelicals took over the GOP initially, Pat Robertson is what started it. Guess what? Pat Robertson never made it to the White House! It took them several elections before they gained control. If we can do it all in one election, that would be absolutely nuts! It's still possible but revolutions in the past have taken much longer and so we really shouldn't be discouraged if it takes 5-15 years.

Are Ron Paulers as passionate as the evangelicals were? Are Ron Paulers passionate enough for the long haul if that's what's needed? I like to think so.

 

[N13]

Demographics:

1. Evangelicals voting based upon religion

2. Agriculture voting to retain government subsidies

3. Bush supporters who like the wars on terror

10% for Ron Paul is a huge victory in a state like this. First or second place was not possible. Finishing third was the best case scenario and it didn't happen by a small margin. Ron Paul's message simply was not a great match for the culture of Iowa.

 

[daniroyer]

I think the demographic of Iowa was the "core" problem. The campaign and the establishment did little to help get over the moutain of a very bad state for Dr. Paul, but we knew this state was going to be an uphill batlle to begin with.