Chuck Norris @ 2:10

Iowa matters for helping to generate campaign donations which can affect the outcome of the primaries. The problem is the field of candidates this year and their chances in the general election.

*election

Adding video to channels (Election) - requested by Stingray.

No true Scotsman.

It really shouldn't matter. Iowa is a placebo, a self fulfilling prophecy. Only Ron Paul is too large a pill to swallow. If people don't believe its significant it won't be.

It's clear the media does not want Ron Paul to get any kind of bump if he wins Iowa.

I think it's clear that Ron Paul has a snowball's chance of winning the nomination let alone the general election.

When the WASPs ran everything, the 60s came along and made it permissible to call them on their bullshit.

We need another 60s for the new ruling tribe.

This is hilarious *quality *doublepromote

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by gwiz665.

Double-Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Saturday, December 31st, 2011 10:19pm PST - doublepromote requested by gwiz665.

Ron Paul killed democracy, oops. When people want something, it is a mistake. People don't know what is good for them, big government and media should like whom is being placed in charge first, then the people can choose from that. There are plenty of REAL issues to take up with Ron Paul, but discrediting a caucus and pulling out the race card isn't one of them. I know a lot of people think RP would be bad for America in many ways (I don't agree), but a far worse thing for America would be that a man that doesn't have the backing of lobbiests and tons of money has 0 chance of wining an election; that the people have no way to choose their leaders that aren't already chosen for them.

I think people are saying a Ron Paul win in Iowa doesn't mean much because his popularity there is not reflected at the national level.

Iowa:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/ia/iowa_republican_presidential_primary-1588.html

National:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/republican_presidential_nomination-1452.html

Iowa has picked 6 of 8 of the last nominees of both parties (including unopposed 2nd term seekers) which is a decent track record.

Look at the numbers for 2008...you could make the same argument about Huckabee. Winning Iowa has always been hit or miss at predicting who the nominee will be. The point of this video I think is that this is the first time when the media is basically telling the voters of Iowa if they vote for a certain candidate then it just won't count. Trying to kill any momentum that RP might get out of an Iowa victory.>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

I think people are saying a Ron Paul win in Iowa doesn't mean much because his popularity there is not reflected at the national level.
National:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/
2012/president/us/republican_presidential_nomination-1452.html
Iowa:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epoll
s/2012/president/ia/iowa_republican_presidential_primary-1588.html

^The Iowa caucus was not very important in 2008. McCain (the eventual Republican nominee) finished a distant 3rd.

28.3 Romney
28.1 Huckabee
11.9 McCain

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/2012_2008_gop_iowa_caucus_4_years_ago.html

I know the topic is "Ron Paul deserves the respect", and he does.

But this all just reminds me of how much I hate our primary election system. By the time most Americans get to vote in the primary it's already been decided. I know people from Iowa and other early primary states have arguments about how it's a good thing. But to anyone who's disenfranchised by the system it's all just bullshit.

front page of huffingtonpost right now:

number of news:

santorum: 8
romney: 5
bachmann: 4
perry: 3
paul: 2
huntsman: 1

One insight I gathered during the 2008 primaries is that according to the media, only "unexpected" results matter. Unexpected in that sentence of course means "something contrary to media conventional wisdom", not something actually unexpected.

So if Romney wins Iowa, it'll be reported as huge because he wasn't "expected" to win, even though his numbers have been fine in Iowa this time around.

If Santorum or Paul wins, it'll be a non-event because Iowa is "expected" to pick someone offbeat and unconventional.

That said, whoever winds up on top will get a flurry of intense media scrutiny until New Hampshire, for good or for ill.

If Romney wins Iowa, expect the media to offer him public blowjobs. If Paul wins, expect to hear lots about racist newsletters and crackpot theories about AIDS, and how New Hampshire will be the "real" start of the primary season.

Nothing really matters, Anyone can see,
Nothing really matters,
Nothing really matters to me...



Any way the wind blows...

isn't this like the best thing that could happen for ron paul? Big media says "Oh he bad! dont vote for him!" so every kid that hates big media then goes "F U big media! votes for ron!"

To everyone who believes that Ron Paul is worthy of supporting for the presidency, please read this article:

http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/98883/ron-paul-incendiary-newsletters-exclusive

"Let's go change the world."

LOL!


EDIT: Ok, I just finished watching the rest. I didn't realize this was a "Ron Paul is getting screwed" video. Face it, when Ron Paul gets 28% in a poll, you know the Repugs in this country are grasping at ANYTHING. It's almost like the party has purposely thrown the race already. Why do they need to win, anyway? Obama is definitely on their team.

There will be a little of that. But unfortunately most voters want to pick a "winner" so if the candidate they agree with most is predicted to lose an election they will jump ship and vote for someone else that has a better chance of winning. This is why what they are doing here is so evil. It's bad enough for them to tell voters their candidate doesn't have a chance to win. It's even worse that they are now saying "even if they win, it won't count".>> ^Lethin:

isn't this like the best thing that could happen for ron paul? Big media says "Oh he bad! dont vote for him!" so every kid that hates big media then goes "F U big media! votes for ron!"

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Iowa has picked 6 of 8 of the last nominees of both parties (including unopposed 2nd term seekers) which is a decent track record.


That sounds a bit like number-fudging If you only have one choice, you could argue an inherent strong correlation of candidate and outcome, so no real point in counting those.

Throwing out the unopposed candidates and going back to 1980, we have 5 of 7 correct picks on the democratic side and 2 of 5 correct picks on the republican side. So in sum 7 of 12 or about 58% where there was an actual choice.

So just from the numbers, I would argue that there isn't that strong of a connection between Iowa caucus winners and chosen candidates. The abrupt about-face of the media (as presented here) is strange though.

Edit: Speeling

Really? creating an account and posting your first message to post junk like this? Take a look at the bottom of that article to see how people react to poorly composed, slanted articles like that.


I looked for links to this article on Google and it looks like it is referenced in a ton of comments about how Newt is fighting back against negative ads. I wonder if these posts are related to his campaign.

yopyopyop, are you paid to post?
>> ^yopyopyop:

To everyone who believes that Ron Paul is worthy of supporting for the presidency, please read this article:
http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/98883/ron-paul-incendia
ry-newsletters-exclusive

Yes, I created an account just to post that but I don't see how that makes what Paul said any less hazardous. I'm very fed up with people romanticizing and elevating Ron Paul to a hero status. Some of his approaches are refreshing, I totally agree, but I think a lot of people get swept up in the hype and ignore the fact that a lot of his key stances are elitist. If you look at his approaches to welfare and class distinctions, it's very quite sickening. His basic position is that people should be happy with their lots in life. On the one hand this means not meddling in others affairs (yay, no foreign wars) but on the other it means not helping out people who need social support. I'm not a U.S. citizen and don't work for Gingrich, if that's what you're wondering.


>> ^visionep:

Really? creating an account and posting your first message to post junk like this? Take a look at the bottom of that article to see how people react to poorly composed, slanted articles like that.

I looked for links to this article on Google and it looks like it is referenced in a ton of comments about how Newt is fighting back against negative ads. I wonder if these posts are related to his campaign.
yopyopyop, are you paid to post?
>> ^yopyopyop:
To everyone who believes that Ron Paul is worthy of supporting for the presidency, please read this article:
http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/98883/ron-paul-incendia
ry-newsletters-exclusive