The latest Madville Times poll asked you to take a break from required assembly and unwrap your prediction for the winner of next week's Iowa caucuses. Eighty of you responded (thank you, dear readers!) and prognosticated thus:
Who's going to win the Iowa caucuses?
- Ron Paul (44%, 35 Votes)
- Mitt Romney (30%, 24 Votes)
- Newt Gingrich (13%, 10 Votes)
- Michele Bachmann (5%, 4 Votes)
- Rick Santorum (5%, 4 Votes)
- Jon Huntsman (4%, 3 Votes)
- Rick Perry (0%, 0 Votes)
[Madville Times poll, 2011.12.23&ndash26]
Now remember, we're not asking whom we want to win; we're asking whom we think will win. And my esteemed readers are riding with the current polling averages which show Ron Paul with an edge over Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich. A few of my readers are still willing to hold out hope (or perhaps cynicism?) for a miracle (i.e., an irrational outburst) for Michele Bachmann. However, I find mild satisfaction in seeing that my readers are unanimous in their recognition that Rick Perry doesn't stand a chance.
While this poll carries the standard Madville Times margin of error just slightly larger than the length of Rick Perry's awkward pauses, the plurality Paul pick may be on target. Consider that, contrary to what we out-staters might think from all the media coverage, Iowans feel they haven't been getting as much attention from the GOP candidates as they have in previous years. One party leader says that explains why there are still so many Iowa undecideds. That may also explain why Paul, with his long-standing coterie of libertarian diehards, could generate enough activist buzz to triumph over bigger machines that haven't been trying as hard as they have in the past.
Of course, a Ron Paul victory next week could mean Iowa would see even less attention from GOP presidential candidates in 2016 and beyond, as the GOP bosses could decide Iowa is just nuts. Pass the corndogs, and turn up the news!
Update 11:05 CST: Ron Paul campaigns on fears of doomsday scenarios. His electoral victory could mean doomsday for the country... or at least for the GOP:
Non-partisan analysts say his economic proposals - drastic spending cuts, elimination of the Federal Reserve and a return to the gold standard - would plunge the country back into recession.
"Paul appeals to people whose knowledge of major issues is superficial (and) he sees conspiracies where there are none," said Greg Valliere, chief political strategist at Potomac Research Group, an analysis firm. "If he does well in Iowa, which is likely, it will be an enormous embarrassment to the Republicans" [Andy Sullivan, "Paul Builds Campaign on Doomsday Scenarios," Reuters via Yahoo News, 2011.12.26].
I could not support Ron Paul after his newsletters feature so many racist remarks.
Compounding that problem, Mike, is the fact that Paul is now changing his story on those newsletters. At times, Paul says some really interesting things that rightly challenge the conventional wisdom. But just as I might start to root him, he spouts economic nonsense.
I totally agree.
Mike,
I am sure I havent seen the worst but can you reference any of Paul's remarks in context? All I have seen are not even full sentences. Before I decide they are racist, racial or just ill-advised, I need to see more. I have learned too often things are neither interpreted or presented fairly.
Troy,
A link to many of the newsletters is here. http://ronpaulnewsletters.blogspot.com/2011/12/newletter-links-reported-to-finally.html
I think this little "how to prevent a hip hopper from jacking your car" passage might give the context you want.
http://www.tnr.com/sites/default/files/InvestmentOctober1992.pdf
Hey, a lot of that old Ron Paul conspiracy stuff sounds kinda like Sibby. Thanks for the link, LK.
Didn't R P suggest the Us gov have a hand in 9/11? Ans then recant?
John, perhaps you refer to allegations from former Paul staffer Eric Dondero? The Paul campaign says Dondero is full of hooey. Paul has also frequently rejected the contention that 9/11 was an inside job.
Gingrich way out ahead in Montana; Paul a distant second:
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2011/11/gingrich-up-big-in-florida-and-montana.html
Either Ron Paul or Donald Trump could destroy the Republicans' hopes for winning the presidential election, simply by running on an independent ticket. I'll bet that at least one of those two (and possibly both) will do exactly that.
"Hey, a lot of that old Ron Paul conspiracy stuff sounds kinda like Sibby. "
Or your Bircher conspiracy theories.