Posted on 12/06/2011 11:08:12 AM PST by presidio9
Ron Paul rarely makes news, and his candidacy is frequently ignored by Beltway reporters. But headlines, his aides say, are overrated. In fact, the Texas Republican’s low-key autumn was strategic. As Paul’s competitors stumbled and sparred, he amassed a small fortune for his campaign and built a strong ground operation. And with January fast approaching, his team is ready to surprise the political world and sweep the Iowa caucuses.
“This was a movement when he first started running in 2008,” says Trygve Olson, a senior Paul adviser. “Now it’s turned into a highly professionalized campaign, but the energy from that last run is still there, and at the heart of what’s keeping up his momentum.”
The latest polls back up that confidence. In the influential Des Moines Register poll published over the weekend, Paul placed second. Newt Gingrich, the former House speaker, captured 25 percent of likely Iowa GOP voters, but Paul garnered 18 percent, two points ahead of Mitt Romney, who in 2008 placed second in the caucuses.
If Paul wins Iowa, the upset could upend what many politicos say is a two-man race between Gingrich and Romney. According to state GOP insiders, a Paul victory is a real possibility. In background conversations, many say Paul is much stronger than outside observers believe, with deep and wide support among a frustrated electorate. With Herman Cain’s departure from the race, operatives see Paul potentially collecting a quarter of caucus attendees.
“Ron Paul is definitely for real out here,” says Tim Albrecht, the communications director for Iowa governor Terry Branstad, who has not endorsed any GOP candidate. “He is going to get 18 percent in the caucuses no matter what. If there’s a snowstorm, he’ll probably win, since he has such dedicated, passionate supporters. The question is
(Excerpt) Read more at cbsnews.com ...
As I was typing this, I was listening to Rush Limbaugh make a point that I agree with: Ron Paul is not a conservative, he is a libertarian. Ron Paul can not be considered a Tea Party candidate, if Michelle Bachmann and Rick Santorum can. There are enormous differences between his platform and theirs, especially on foreign policy.
Unlike a lot of FReepers, I will hold my nose and vote for Romney if he gets the nomination. I have a very hard time seeing myself doing so for Paul. I suppose I will, should he win the nomination, but I see him as the most dangerous Republican with a chance to win.
I am not happy with any of the remaining candidates, but I would reluctantly vote for any of them except Paul, based upon his foreign policy positions.
Paul winning in Iowa would mean Romney runs away with the nomination.
There is zero chance Paul will win the nomination anyway. If he somehow wins the Iowa caucuses it won’t be anywhere near a majority. And how many of the past winners in Iowa have gone on to be the nominee? Darn few.
My guess is Newt wins IA, finishes a strong second in NH, then wins SC and FL by landslides, at which point it’s pretty well over.
Ron Paul gaining traction.
Has the Establishment on both sides worried.
I’m indifferent about the odds, which are zero.
If Ron Paul ran against Obama it would make history.
Obama would win all 57 states by a landslide.
Ron Paul is a ‘blame America first’ liberal moron!
So get behind Newt/Rubio '12
Breaking News: Gallup National Republican Primary Daily Tracking Poll
•Gingrich – 37% •Romney – 22% •Paul – 8% •Bachmann – 6% •Perry – 6% •Santorum – 3% •Huntsman – 1% •Undecided – 14%
http://race42012.com/2011/12/06/grab-some-popcorn-poll-nerds/
Because they're next to zero?
Bingo!
Bingo!
I'll give 10,000 to one against Paul winning the Republican nomination for President in 2012.
In order to bet me you must post a minimum bet of $ 10,000.00 in US Currency, and put it into an escrow account and I hold the escrow account key.
If you are on board with this bet, send me a private message and I'll take all of your money.
Would not vote for this guy but his son would be another story speaks great and a true conservative.
Yes. I've been watching the debates. I tend to use this word carefully in political discussions, but a lot of what he has said terrifys me.
Off the top of my head, I can think of several trustworthy political commentators who feel the same way. These include Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, Laura Ingraham, and Mark Steyn. There is an easy way to do this: ALL Republican candidates are going to have some degree of political overlap. Pick any two foreign policy positions that differentiate Paul from the pack, and tell me why he's right, and the others are wrong.
“I’m curious what you find disagreeable. A lot of what I’m reading makes sense.”
Jeff,
A lot of people who call themselves Conservatives, or ‘Tea Party’, are actually relatvely new to the movement.
Most of them are old Establishment folks who still think there is a ‘real difference’ between Dempublicans and Republicrats. You and I know better.
That’s why we do indeed see a lot more sense in the Ron Paul campaign than in the others. We saw it in 2008 too when he ran.
Ron Paul 2012 ... 30 Years of Consistency - Sovereignty for America
His foreign policy (which verges on Cheese Eating Surrender Monkey) will preclude this.
Which is sort of a shame, as he is right on so many other issues.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.