Paul beaten by the two pro-war candidates in Iowa

[-:Undertaker:-]

http://caucuses.desmoinesregister.com/

http://www.iaza.com/work/120104C/iaza13186166967500.bmp

A former Doctor, former military veteran and faithful family man beaten by a man [Romnney] who is identical to Obama (supports the healthcare plans but then pretends not to, supports going to war with Iran by consulting his laywers and not the constitution and Congress as he should do, supports federal government meddling in the states which is, again, unconstitutional) just so Republicans can put their man in the White House without actually changing anything at all. Then, in second comes Rick Santorum who was on 5% in Iowa until CNN 'accidently' published a poll which showed him on 15% (was a poll of only registered Republicans, a dud poll) and ran with that the whole week pushing him up. Santorum? stands for the same as Romney but I guess you could say is even more pro-war than Romney because he said as President he'd instantly bomb Iran.

But the people of Iowa have chosen (what the establishment want), and it speaks volumes. Although its not over for the Paul campaign, but its a blow.

Looking at the map (i'm not sure exactly how it works) but Paul could have picked up quite a few delegates from Iowa, which is good news.

Thoughts? if it comes down to Romney/Santorum vs Obama will it make a jot of difference who wins?

[Grig]

I was surprised Santorum got the amount of votes he did, his speeches target an audience of monkeys- they were God awful.

I had a feeling Romney would come first, so that's not a surprise. Bachman and Perry will probably drop out now, leaving it to 3 main contenders. You have to remember though, Romney's campaign failed in the southern states in 2008 and that will be his testing point. It's those states that his support will drop. Paul is still a clear-cut second in New Hampshire, but I'm not sure what this victory for Santorum will do for his numbers over there. The waters in a GOP race haven't been this turbulent for a while. I also hear that John McCain will be endorsing Romney tomorrow, which may give him a bigger boost.

If Paul doesn't get through, you can count your bets that Obama gets voted in for a second term, not by a big margin, but still voted in.

Here's an interesting video made by a former top CIA official who had insight into the spending by the government in terms of foreign policy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-lG0EK4YQ_c&feature=share

[Jordy]

It doesn't look great for Ron Paul I agree, but history suggests these results in Iowa don't really have all that much to do with the final outcome so I wouldn't despair yet, even the BBC had a lengthy article about Ron Paul yesterday (It wasn't biased either!) so he's definitely getting bigger.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Indeed there is hope, after all it [the race] goes by delegates and CNN *holds nose* are saying that Romney has 7 pledged delegates, Santorum 7 pledged delegates and Paul 7 pledged delegates from Iowa.

CNN - http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/primaries/state/ia


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yFznkB7Rv1I

[Grig]

I swear Paul had a silent victory in terms of delegates.

Anyway, here is an interesting site on the fact that Paul is still in it for the long run with a chance: http://reason.com/archives/2012/01/04/the-bright-side-of-ron-pauls-third-place.

Also, from the RT


According to the Ron Paul camp, the steam that surged Rick Santorum to the top tier in recent days is staggering and the former Pennsylvania senator will be unable to show any success continuing out of Iowa. Instead, rather, the Republican Party will be left with only two choices in the months leading up to the GOP National Convention: Ron Paul and Mitt Romney.

Full article here: http://rt.com/usa/news/iowa-ron-paul-santorum-205/

Fact is, if we go by history Huckabee won Iowa in 2008 and look where it wound him up in that race. Bill Clinton only gained around 8% in Iowa when he was campaigning for president, and was still weak in NH. So it could and will probably be full of twists and turns ahead.

[Fez]

Fingers crossed.

[FiftyCal]

1 State down, 49 more to go or 56 more to go Obama would say. I still have lots of hope in Ron, but if it does come down to him not making it in primary against Obama, it wont matter who you vote for, they're all bought out.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Washington Times Poll out for New Hampshire, post-Iowa;
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jan/5/santorum-gets-big-bounce-new-hampshire/?page=all#pagebreak

Mitt Romney 38% (down from over 40%)
Ron Paul 24% (up from around 18%)
Rick Santorum 11% (up from around 7%)
Newt Gingrich 9%
Jon Huntsman 8%
Rick Perry 1%

I haven't checked into the poll properly (too tired) and there was another out which had Paul on 18% (think it was before/during Iowa).

There's a PPP Poll out on Saturday so i'll post more on the New Hampshire race with the polls come the weekend.

[darbest]

I hope this Paul guy don't get in. The last thing anyone needs is another War anywhere, unless it can be avoided deeply like Lybia could'nt. I just hope either Hillary Clinton or Sarah Palin runs and gazumps the other candidates at the end of the hour regardless of what happens in Iowa.

[FlyingJesus]

I hope this Paul guy don't get in. The last thing anyone needs is another War anywhere, unless it can be avoided deeply like Lybia could'nt. I just hope either Hillary Clinton or Sarah Palin runs and gazumps the other candidates at the end of the hour regardless of what happens in Iowa.

Wow there is so much wrong with this post I don't even know where to start

[Caution]

I hope this Paul guy don't get in. The last thing anyone needs is another War anywhere, unless it can be avoided deeply like Lybia could'nt. I just hope either Hillary Clinton or Sarah Palin runs and gazumps the other candidates at the end of the hour regardless of what happens in Iowa.
you're wrong in many, many ways.

[FiftyCal]

I hope this Paul guy don't get in. The last thing anyone needs is another War anywhere, unless it can be avoided deeply like Lybia could'nt. I just hope either Hillary Clinton or Sarah Palin runs and gazumps the other candidates at the end of the hour regardless of what happens in Iowa. Do some research before you post something about Ron Paul. He is against wars that is not on our own soil. People like you is probably the reason why Paul isn't taking 1st because "Hes a typical republican that wants to start wars" He is not a puppet on strings and he's not going to bring troops home in 16 months like Obama stated in his speeches before he got elected president. He will bring them home instantly.

You can start by watching this video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fOUb9YZYUM

[Grig]

I hope this Paul guy don't get in. The last thing anyone needs is another War anywhere, unless it can be avoided deeply like Lybia could'nt. I just hope either Hillary Clinton or Sarah Palin runs and gazumps the other candidates at the end of the hour regardless of what happens in Iowa.

Wow. I am giving you some -rep for this...That's probably the most I can say without sounding rude. You sound like you have been living in a hole for the past 4 years and what you just said is so extraordinarily stupid.

Hilary Clinton won't run, she's in another party and in Obama's cabinet. It's too late for anyone else like Palin to enter the GOP. Mind you, both their policies were different. As for Ron Paul, you should do at least 1 minute's research on him before realizing that his policies are anywhere near interventionist when it comes to foreign policy.

Here is an earlier video from last year that can help you get to terms:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WzEaj0c1YSo

[darbest]

Do some research before you post something about Ron Paul. He is against wars that is not on our own soil. People like you is probably the reason why Paul isn't taking 1st because "Hes a typical republican that wants to start wars" He is not a puppet on strings and he's not going to bring troops home in 16 months like Obama stated in his speeches before he got elected president. He will bring them home instantly.


Yeah but he still supports war with Iran or so say's the O.P here. So now you tell me who is talking the more buncham?!!!

[Grig]

Yeah but he still supports war with Iran or so say's the O.P here. So now you tell me who is talking the more buncham?!!!

Erm, is it me or are those views that you have stated that of a complete fool? Get off your high horse and do some research. Paul does not support foreign intervention where America wastes billions of dollars policing the world. He also is AGAINST war in Iran and states that Iran does not have any capabilities to do any harm towards the US.

More -rep will be coming your way. Read the bloody op post, he said Romney supports war with Iran. What you just said is not only extremely dumb, but very blind. I didn't think it could get any worse than your last post to be honest and it has.

[FiftyCal]

Yeah but he still supports war with Iran or so say's the O.P here. So now you tell me who is talking the more buncham?!!! Where are you getting your info from? He doesnt support any offensive war and wants to close all military bases around the world. Seriously stop right there if i were you.

[Wig44.]

Come on guys, it's not that hard to spot a troll...

But if he isn't then he's a TYPICAL LIBERAL

[Grig]

Ron Paul is surging in New Hampshire: http://www.ronpaul2012.com/2012/01/05/ron-paul-surging-in-new-hampshire-following-top-tier-finish-in-iowa/

He now has 24% and this is expected to grow. Slowly catching up to Romney and solidly positioning himself in second place.

[FiftyCal]

Ron Paul is surging in New Hampshire: http://www.ronpaul2012.com/2012/01/05/ron-paul-surging-in-new-hampshire-following-top-tier-finish-in-iowa/

He now has 24% and this is expected to grow. Slowly catching up to Romney and solidly positioning himself in second place. This is good news, thanks for posting.