freeman2 wrote:Steve, we have a bet. Guapo, no.

funny attempt though.

Shucks. I'll try again.

January 4th Headlines: Gingrich Defeats Romney for Second Place. Bachmann Comes in Fourth

That one was from Gary North

What I think is a very good opinion piece on the nomination process:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 79948.html

To compete against a do-what-you've-gotta-do opponent, Mitt Romney needs more of what Newt Gingrich gave him Saturday night: pressure. Forget the pleasures of a no-sweat primary season. He needs a sparring partner, someone who will toughen him to handle what he's going to get next fall. That would be Newt Gingrich, the best sparring partner in American politics.

Barack Obama, a novice in February 2007 when he announced for the presidency, survived an arduous set of primary battles and debates with Hillary Clinton, who was plenty tough herself. John McCain had to contend with . . . Mitt Romney. (And a tough guy named Rudy Giuliani, who failed to answer the bell.)

The Republican establishment is writing at great length that no matter how smart Newt is, he can't be part of this because he is an unhinged and unreliable creature of the Beltway cesspool. But if he were gone or discredited, the Romney candidacy will go into a virtual coma.

Looks like the military doesn't want to be led by the Newt Romney



Judge Andrew Napolitano: "So if Ron Paul gets the most support from the military, & his opponents oppose his foreign policy, then if you don't support Ron Paul you hate freedom & the troops?"

Steve if you still think Paul is even money to win Iowa, go to intrade.com and place your bets...he is around 2:1 odds there.

Unfortunately you can't use your credit or debit card to fund your account due to federal law...terrorists, yknow.

Ok, my Iowa prediction (given with no level of confidence because the polling numbers are changing almost daily)

1st - Perry
2nd - Romney
3rd - Gingrinch
4th - Paul.

Currently Perry, Bachman and Santorum are polling around10% each. I think those supporters will rally behind one. Since Perry is the most electable of the group, I think they will solidify around him. I also think a lot of the anti-Romney social conservatives supporting Gingrinch will move to Perry because they realize Newt doesn't really represent their positions.

Romney will get his 20-24% that he has been steady at. Gingrinch will get between 12-15%

Ron Paul will pull in the 10% he did in 2008. I know he is polling in the high 20's. The problem is his supporters don't vote. Believe me, I would love to see him finish higher becasue I think a Perry/Paul 1st/2nd finish means Huntsman does much better in New Hampshire. However, I don't think it is going to happen.

I think it's:

1. Paul
2. Romney
3. Gingrich
4. Santorum

It is possible that Gingrich may drop lower than 3. If that happens, he will have to win South Carolina, or he will drop out.

If Santorum doesn't finish at least a close 4th, he's out. Bachmann will drop out.

Because of the unique structure of the caucus, I think Paul will do better than you believe. His followers will be there no matter what and they will not change their vote.

Steve is right on the money re: Paul supporters. Don't know why you don't think they will vote. They'll go through a blizzard to support him.

My prediction is the same as Steve's but I wouldn't be surprised to see Perry move up along the lines that Russ mentioned to take second or even first. But Paul is going to have a top 2 finish.

BTW, how do you guys think Iowa undecideds will react to this?

http://www.lewrockwell.com/politicalthe ... eadline-4/

Seems like the others are starting to turn their guns on Paul. I guess the Paulistas ought really to be pleased about this development because at least it means he's being taken seriously as a legitimate threat rather than simply being ignored.

Some of the arguments people were making in that article are ridiculous btw. If I lived in Iowa I'd be half tempted to turn up and vote for Paul myself because I was so annoyed at my intelligence being insulted.

theodorelogan wrote:BTW, how do you guys think Iowa undecideds will react to this?

http://www.lewrockwell.com/politicalthe ... eadline-4/

I think the better question is how will GOP voters react if Paul wins Iowa?

My take: panic. I think it will tend to galvanize voters behind one or two candidates, thus marginalizing Paul. He will fight on to the convention and probably have about 10% of the delegates to it, maybe a bit less.

1 Gingrich
2 Romney
3 Paul
4 who knows?

I predict that Gingrich and Romney will effectively tie, Paul will come in a distant third and everyone else will be in the single digits.

If you replace "voters" with "elites" then I agree with your post 100%. Steve. They'll be scared silly by the idea that their federal gravy train might be at risk.

Paul is the only candidate that would change Washington and by that I mean the political appointments. Obama just brought in all the same sordid Dems that Hillary would have. Any Republican candidate except Paul will usher in all same sorts of people for their political appointments. I believe that stands as the most significant issue as to why the GOP would in the end move heaven and earth to stop Paul from getting the nomination.

Paul has been more successful this time because they have been making inroads into the Party since the last election and will stay organized regardless of the outcome of this election. There are certain enclaves nationally where the Paulistas hold sway in the Republican apparatus.

They try to convince the public that they are voting for the man, but he's really just a salesman for the Party. Unless the Pauls reach a certain threshold in party influence there's just realistically no way to become POTUS, because you have to convince the Party 1st become you get to make a national bid.

theodorelogan wrote:If you replace "voters" with "elites" then I agree with your post 100%. Steve. They'll be scared silly by the idea that their federal gravy train might be at risk.

Well, this Republican won't "panic," I guess. However, a Paul win would definitely narrow the field and take out all but Romney and one other, maybe two. I know you and a few others here think Paul can win. I don't think going to the far right economically (which I love) and the far, far, far right on foreign relations is going to reach a large cross-section of the electorate.

A couple of ads showing Paul blaming America for 9/11 and I think he gets about 15% of the vote. His message has some appeal, but he is the wrong messenger and he is not electable.

I know, I know. I'm wrong. That's okay. He won't be the nominee.

I don't think Paul is going to do as well as everybody thinks. The reason is the break down on the polls show that when you count just registered Republican voters, Paul is only getting about 17% of the vote. When you look at the numbers of registered Republicans that voted in the 2008 Caucuses, Paul gets about 18%. Paul does best amongst Independants and Democrats. The problem is Iowa is a closed system.

Further, the majority of his support comes from younger people. Young people don't vote. Yes, the Paul supporters seem to be extremely loyal (though in a recent PPP pol only 29% said they were strongly committed to Paul while 13% said they might end up supporting someone else), they tend to be under 30 (42%). 20somethings on average tend not to vote.

Basically, it boils down to Ron Paul needs the record turn out of youth vote seen in 2008, make sure 70% that are not strongly committed to him don't desert him and that enough Independents decide to acutally register with a party to be able to vote for him. Sorry but I don't see all three things happening.

But like I said, I would love to see him and Perry in 1st and 2nd place. A 3rd or 4th place Romney finish means Huntsman might have a chance of winning New Hampshire where he is currently polling in a 4th and climbing (one NH poll has him in 3rd (13%) above Paul (8%) but behind Romney (34%) and Gingrinch (20%).)