Duh. Isn't it obvious? If Ron Paul won every primary in the country they'd just quietly pick someone else as nominee.

What I don't get is why he's so masochistic as to stay with a political party that seriously considers him a non-person.

Which is reason #2 why I could never vote for him.

Chris should have followed in his famous father's footsteps and become a journalist.

mrshowrules: I think Paul is a nutjob but with the Republicans and Liberals both passing the defense bill provision, I would vote for him (if I could) out of desperation.

I know Rand Paul voted against the NDAA, so I can only assume Ron Paul did as well, but does anyone actually know?

To be totally honest, the more I see Obama vacillate on NDAA and welcome SOPA, the more Ron Paul actually seems like a good idea.

Considering the fact that he's the only candidate who would veto a bill that would destroy the 4th amendment, I actually am starting to feel like voting for him.

Especially since his crazier ideas like destroying the Dept of Education and returning the gold standard would never happen. But his more reasonable ideas like bringing the troops home from Afghanistan and protecting civil liberties might actually happen.

It's always interesting to see how desperate the party shills from both parties are to smear the guy.

Until he imprisons people without charges (as both Bush and Obama have) or murders American citizens without due process (as Obama has done) he is not the crazy one you need to vote against.

Paul has a loyal and organized base but he is old news and cannot win the general.
Which puts him one step ahead of Gingrich.

qorkfiend: mrshowrules: I think Paul is a nutjob but with the Republicans and Liberals both passing the defense bill provision, I would vote for him (if I could) out of desperation.

I know Rand Paul voted against the NDAA, so I can only assume Ron Paul did as well, but does anyone actually know?

Not only did Ron Paul vote against this bipartisan bullshiat, he used quite a bit of what little time in the recent debate they gave him to speak out against the NDAA's treasonous provisions.

BullBearMS: Until he imprisons people without charges (as both Bush and Obama have) or murders American citizens without due process (as Obama has done)

I still don't understand why Republicans don't just love Obama...

Has anyone bothered to run negative attack ads against Ron Paul yet?

It's funny how everyone in the establishment seems to see Ron Paul as such a threat, and yet no one wants to make attack ads against him.

I love the dig at David Frum as being "one of those Republicans." At least they didn't call him a RINO.

Hey, if any of this Republican line up wins all the primaries, can I still say it doesn't count? Is that how this election thingie works?

For everything admirable about Paul there is something less than likable. That said, the complete lack of coverage he gets is absurd. He isn't considered a serious candidate because he doesn't get media attention. He doesn't get media attention because he isn't considered a serious candidate.

But, hey, Gingrich's time is about up. Maybe after Santorum is the new not-Romney front-runner for a week it'll be Paul's turn.

Churchy LaFemme: BullBearMS: Until he imprisons people without charges (as both Bush and Obama have) or murders American citizens without due process (as Obama has done)

I still don't understand why Republicans don't just love Obama...

Really? 'Cuz I can think of a really big reason, the ONLY reason actually.

I got no problem voting for RP, but at his age, being POTUS and having to deal with the mess we have now would probably kill him.

As an Iowan, let me say this: Who decided we should be first in the nation? Why do we matter in this discussion?

Protip: We don't matter. We hate seeing political ads six months before the rest of the country. We hate getting 2-3 calls during every weeknight dinner, and we especially hate that those calls ramp up in frequency during the holidays. That's when they need to make those calls, by the way, because whoever's in charge keeps having a dick fight with New Hampshire and Florida about moving the caucus/primary dates earlier and earlier.

We feed the world, but we certainly don't give a fark about picking its leader.

About Ron Paul: In a town of 10,000, only two of them support Paul. And they're the kooks, of course.

And in case you don't live in Iowa and haven't seen it yet: Ask yourself: Did Ron Paul really need to tailor one of his political ads to the style of those annoying Denis Leary bro-talk Ford truck commercials?

swahnhennessy: For everything admirable about Paul there is something less than likable.

Paul is anti-abortion, but so is Senate Majority Leader Reid.

Paul thinks the States should handle certain issues, but so does President Obama.

Funny how these things only matter sometimes.

BullBearMS: Paul thinks the States should handle certain issues, but so does President Obama.

So... vote Obama?

Reading these comments has me confused: are the Iowa caucuses relevant or not?

I hate I_Hate_Iowa: And in case you don't live in Iowa and haven't seen it yet: Ask yourself: Did Ron Paul really need to tailor one of his political ads to the style of those annoying Denis Leary bro-talk Ford truck commercials?

Have you seen the Conan version?

Link (new window)

It's funny watching Paul supporters with no sense of humor whine because a presidential candidate is being subjected to satire by comedians. They can't take the heat, but they don't want to leave the kitchen.

Another person complains that the ads aren't clearly labeled as satire and could be mistaken for the real thing. Which says a lot more about Ron Paul than it says about Conan.

Churchy LaFemme: BullBearMS: Paul thinks the States should handle certain issues, but so does President Obama.

So... vote Obama?

Or you could decide that doing the same thing should either disqualify both or not matter with either.

/Too logical?

Keyser_Soze_Death: I got no problem voting for RP, but at his age, being POTUS and having to deal with the mess we have now would probably kill him.

He's pretty healthy and full of vigor for his age. Even so, he's knocking on the front door of the national life expectancy. It would seem like a bad move to elect someone at that age to what is possibly the hardest and most stressful job on the planet. Especially when they're being elected to do it for at least four years.

I like that Ron Paul runs though. I think that he's in many ways the ideal of what the GOP claims to be and yet falls so completely short of. It's nice to have him around as a reminder that they're absolutely full of shiat.

Every time schrote posts in this thread I'm giving the Ron Paul campaign an additional $10.

BullBearMS: swahnhennessy: For everything admirable about Paul there is something less than likable.

Paul is anti-abortion, but so is Senate Majority Leader Reid.

Paul thinks the States should handle certain issues, but so does President Obama.

Funny how these things only matter sometimes.

Well as long as there is one other candidate who supports any of Pauls positions in even a tangential way, I guess we do all have abligation to support him!

CanisNoir: Bag of Hammers: Really? 'Cuz I can think of a really big reason, the ONLY reason actually.

His economic and domestic policy positions? That's what you were alluding to right?

Cut taxes, expanded gun rights, continued Patriot Act, ditched Hillarycare for individual mandate, killed Osama, won Iraq, stock market way up, Wall Street not held accountable for crash, Guantanamo still open, what is there for a Republican to not like?

BullBearMS: swahnhennessy: For everything admirable about Paul there is something less than likable.

1. Paul is anti-abortion, but so is Senate Majority Leader Reid.

2. Paul thinks the States should handle certain issues, but so does President Obama.

Funny how these things only matter sometimes.

Wow, you really covered the bases there. 1 is far from people's biggest complaints about RP, and 2 is the most meaningless statement ever. I'm pretty big on the federal government vs. reserving things for the state generally, but I still think local governments should be in charge of "certain issues" so I guess I'm just like ron paul. Who knew?

dletter: So, the eventual nominee has almost always done "very well" in Iowa in the last 30 or so years, and you can basically consider the Dem 88 & 92 examples more issues with 'local' candidates having an advantage.

weird definition of "almost always"...

schrodinger: Have you seen the Conan version?

Link (new window)

No, I had not seen that. That's hilarious, and I feel a little less "AM I TAKING CRAZY PILLS?!" now.

dletter:
Since 1980, the eventually nominee has either won or been a very close 2nd in Iowa, other than:
2008: Huckabee (McCain 4th)
1992: Harkin (but, Harkin is from Iowa so basically nobody tried to run in Iowa that year and it lost any ability to shape the race)
1988: Gephardt (Dukakis came in 3rd behind border staters Gephardt and Paul Simon)
1988: Bob Dole (Bush came in 3rd behind him and Robertson)


Not impressed, so in 8 presidential elections (1980, 1984, 1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, 2008) the winner was either 1st or second in 4. I'm pretty bad a math, but that's not really a good indicator, you may as well flip a quarter.

The Iowa caucus is a bellwether for the rest of the primary season! Unless we don't like the result.