Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dc_dux
Sam....you're right. If you look back at my last post, you will see I changed "big loser" to "wont do any damage" before you posted in order to respond directly to Jorgelito's post. But coming in fifth out of seven can hardly be considered a victory for Ron Paul.
Romney was the biggest loser and if he loses NH to McCain, he is dead. If McCain wins NH....he will have the "big mo" going into a heavy military state like SC and beyond.
Rudy made a huge strategical blunder by not actively campaigning or spending money in Iowa (he announced before the Aug straw polls that he would not campaign or build a ground network in Iowa ..and he certainly didnt campaign there more than RP) and he may never recover.
BTW, those polls you insisted were so unreliable pretty much had it right in Iowa.
Huckabee - 34% (and ave of last 5 polls - 30%)
Romney - 25% (ave of last 5 polls - 26%)
McCain - 13% (ave of last 5 polls - 11%)
Thompson - 13% (ave of last 5 polls - 11%)
Paul - 10% (ave of last 5 polls - 8%)
Guiliani - 3% (ave of last 5 polls - 6%)
http://www.pollster.com/08-IA-Rep-Pres-Primary.php All within a few points margin of error - pretty damn close for a multi-person list of candidates and far closer than your straw polls and internet "click" polls.
The average of latest 5 polls for NH as of today have Paul at 7.6%...this is the "live free or die" and "no tax" state where Pat Buchanan won the primary in '96 (he beat Bob Dole)....so you would think Paul would be polling higher. Perhaps he will get 10% again and still come in fifth.
Thats why I think he wont "do any damage". |
DC, I think it's relative. Going from 3% to 10% is a great achievement for Mr. Ron. Likewise, I consider 5th to be much better than 7th. Especially given the low expectations. Keep in mind, Ron is a dark horse contender type. To contrast, with a strong candidate like Hillary, to place less than 1st is a "big loss" to some, while I'm sure if Ron had her numbers it would be nothing short of incredible. Just like Romney is the 'biggest loser" with "only" 25% and I was surprised too. He seemed to be pretty strong. Huckabee (shudder) made the most extraordinary gains but I don't know if Iowa was just an anomaly or what, but I'm not sure he will do so well in other places. I hope Ron gets 10% in NH, and he may even get more.
DC, the "damage" I am thinking about is more along the lines of garnering enough votes to make the other candidates take notice. To shake things up a bit. For example, if Ron does run as an independent and even manages to grab 3-5% and the Dem candidate wins by 3-5%, I would consider that to be damage (and I would love it too to be quite honest). Actually, I would hope that maybe a couple of more 3rd party candidates come out and grab 1-5% of the vote, just to shake things up, like Nader, Bloomberg, maybe Forbes. etc. maybe even Lieberman.
Anyways, on a side note, it looks like McCain is not quite dead yet and Guiliani seems finished (yes I know it's way early but it's just a feeling, sorry, no links or sources).
Another side note, DC, do you have any more of those charts and graphs showing voter demographics (from a previous thread I think talking about voter preference)? i would love to see a comparison with the Iowa caucus. I am particularly interested in the contrast between Hillary Clinton and Baraka Obama. I thought it was interesting which demographics leaned towards which candidates.