Quote:
|
Originally Posted by jorgelito
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....
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...
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.
|
jorgelito....the expectations game is whatever one wants it to be to put their candidate in the best light, but I believe the Ron Paul followers expected..no, were convinced, he would do much better than 5th place in Iowa. Impartial observers were convinced otherwise. If any of the other Republicans thought he might do any damage in Iowa or beyond, they would be "taking notice of him" and attacking him in the same manner they attack each other and pointing out his extremist voting record and policy positions...but they arent.
I think its too soon to know if there will be third party candidates....its dependent on the two major party candidates. But the Greens dont want Nader this time around and among possible scenarios, I dont think Bloomberg will run if its a Obama/McCain race, but will run if its Clinton/Huckabee (very unlikely)
CNN has interesting "entrance" polls with demographics of Iowa voters (gender, age, income, urban/rural, etc)
Democratic
Republican
The only demographics Hillary won were married women (barely), seniors over 65 (significantly) and those who prefer "experience" over "change"(significantly).